Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[otseng]

I have to think that the concept of dualism is an important aspect of whether to believe in God is rational. If it can be shown that humans have a spiritual aspect then believing in a completely spiritual being makes more sense. On the other hand, if humans' alleged spirituality is merely an accident of our material self, then a spiritual realm with a spiritual God seems less likely.

What is meant by spiritual being? What is the non-material, spiritual dimension of humans which includes consciousness? Can it be shown that consciousness arises from something other than our brain? Can it be shown that there are any eternal attributes to humans?

We can look at these in the theism thread when I get it started.

[McCulloch]

I have to think that the concept of dualism is an important aspect of whether to believe in God is rational. If it can be shown that humans have a spiritual aspect then believing in a completely spiritual being makes more sense. On the other hand, if humans' alleged spirituality is merely an accident of our material self, then a spiritual realm with a spiritual God seems less likely.

What is meant by spiritual being? What is the non-material, spiritual dimension of humans which includes consciousness? Can it be shown that consciousness arises from something other than our brain? Can it be shown that there are any eternal attributes to humans?

We can look at these in the theism thread when I get it started.

I would like to agree but I cannot. You, quite validly, raised the issue of dualism within the context of this debate. The notion of a purely spiritual being, as you believe God to be, is far more plausible if it can be shown that humans are a combination of material and non-material components. As I understand the upcoming theism thread, the question will be about how to arrive at the conclusion of a theistic God, assuming the validity of deism, therefore assuming some form of dualism.

If you do not wish to debate dualism here to support your own notion of a rational belief in God, then please start a new debate thread on dualism by itself, not wrapped up in the theism debate. The two are separate but related issues.

[otseng]

As I understand the upcoming theism thread, the question will be about how to arrive at the conclusion of a theistic God, assuming the validity of deism, therefore assuming some form of dualism.

I only brought up dualism to counter your argument that god would be "unknown". It is not my goal in my arguments to identify the composition and nature of the creator in this thread. Dualism doesn't need to be established to demonstrate that it is rational to believe in a deist god. However, for a theist god, dualism would be very relevant.

I'll get into this more in the theism thread, but for a deist god, there would not be much of a link between god and man. A deist god would not necessarily be similar to, be involved with, have any relationship with, or interact with humans. For a theist god, these would exist.

Of course, all these areas are related. And it's difficult to argue for one thing without touching many other areas. And so though dualism can be included in the discussions for deism, I think it would be much more relevant for theism.

How about this? When we start the theism thread, there will be no assumption of the nature and composition of god other than that god is the creator of the universe and the first life. And we will not assume that such a god is similar to us (in being spiritual).

[McCulloch]

It is not my goal in my arguments to identify the composition and nature of the creator in this thread. Dualism doesn't need to be established to demonstrate that it is rational to believe in a deist god. However, for a theist god, dualism would be very relevant.

I disagree. In the OP, otseng wrote, "God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe. " These two attributes place the God that you are arguing for beyond the God of the Deists.

How about this? When we start the theism thread, there will be no assumption of the nature and composition of god other than that god is the creator of the universe and the first life. And we will not assume that such a god is similar to us (in being spiritual).

So in the theism thread we will also not assume that God is intentional or intelligent? I also do not believe that it is necessary to deism that God directly created first life, but that life may have occurred as a natural consequence of God's initial creativity.

[otseng]

I disagree. In the OP, otseng wrote, "God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe. " These two attributes place the God that you are arguing for beyond the God of the Deists.

I don't see how it is not.

"Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

In order to create something so complex, it would require intelligence and intentionality. Can you suggest how else it could have been created?

So in the theism thread we will also not assume that God is intentional or intelligent?

That will of course be assumed.

I also do not believe that it is necessary to deism that God directly created first life, but that life may have occurred as a natural consequence of God's initial creativity.

As in it was a miracle?

[otseng]

McCulloch and I agreed via PM to close this thread.

I've started the followup thread - Arguments for a theistic God.