Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1553 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #151

Post by POI »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:34 pm
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:00 pm
historia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:33 am
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:54 am
historia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:52 pm
POI wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:31 pm
historia wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:44 pm 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.
Or, is it reasonable to believe life exists on other planets? :) But there exists a HUGE disparity between me reasonably believing, verses being reasonably convinced. Same goes for 'god.' 'Reasonable' seems to be a very low standard, when faced with the question of supposing a "life-changing god'.
So, your answer to my question is 'Yes'?
I guess it would depend on the claimed God in question. Which one are you referring to?
I just mean God in the general (philosophical) sense, without regard to any specific religious conceptions of God.
Well, it depends... What does the term 'god' mean exactly? I mean, really... I have to circle you back to (post 129).

Let's flesh this out for a minute...

If the inquisitive question asked is... "Do you believe life exists on other planets?" I'd say, it is 'reasonable' to state (yes). As "Transponder" has already pointed out, based upon the number of star/planet combinations we have in our universe, it seems 'conceivable and/or reasonable'. But really, that just becomes a talking point, as I find it less conceivable any such 'alien life' has ever made contact with earth -- EVEN THOUGH we have countless documented 'sightings', testimonials, writings, etc.... Sound familiar? Hint hint -- (the specific god you likely believe exists/interacts)....But yea, there may exist intelligent or unintelligent life elsewhere, besides earth?.?.?.?

Are you getting the picture yet?. If you are curious as to whether I could get on board with mere "deism" and/or "theism"? Well, I 'guess' it is 'reasonable/conceivable/possible/other'? But how 'reasonable/conceivable/possible/other? But the question almost becomes too generic, until you start digging a bit... You need to clarify 'reasonable' and 'god', for starters. And once you do this, we can have a real discussion. Otherwise, it's about as useful as asking "is (this or that) even possible/reasonable? It depends....
Very good - as one would expect. It is a point i didn't consider. Yes, ET life is a logically and evidentially good bet (like the Higgs -Boson, Black holes and Tiktaalik until they were actually found, and Abogenesis, Dark Matter, and something from nothing, which is not yet proven. The possibility opf an intelligent ET that might contact us is far lower, but stiill quite plausible. And ET Saucer -pilots actually being here, though anecdotally ought to be compelling has actually turned out to be not, Crop circles having failed, the research methods flawed (never mind so many that look fake) and even the Big Three (Socorro, Villas Boas and the Hills (1) being debunked.

Now with 'God' we can deal with 'what does 'God' mean. Either a religious (name your own) or non religious Cosmic mind. Simple - like atheism. Either of those cover all manner of sub- divisions, remote deist or interative intelligent nature? In either sae, the argument is the same. The evidence that one would exect isn't there and the evidence is, remarkably like the UFO evidence - debunked, delusionary, or spurious.
Not that Deistgod -theist or even Intelligent nature fanciers have to be (as irreligious theists) at odds with atheists (or non -theists) as regards religion. But sooften they want to use deism or ireligious theism (aka "Agnostic") as alaughable attempt to debunk atheism, "If a Deistgod is real, atheism is false". Yes, dudes, :D but you haven't a damn' scrap of evidence to prove that it Is true. You are only invited in the atheist summer -camp, precinct because you are irreligious; Dammit, we even give day -passes to religious humanists and Christian evolutionists, providing they don't deface the atheist books in the Library.
.
The arguments for Deistgod or intelligent nature are no better than the Christian (or Islam) ones, (Kalam, Anselm or Ontological arguments) though we don't get the leap of Faith to a Holy Book.

That is perhaps the equivalent of possible ET life. But Religious evidence is - like UFO evidence - initially persuasive. But under examination, turns out to be far less so. The Bibler debunked, miracles debunked, various extra biblical claims debunked. In fact nothing and less than nothing. But that said, it's more the case for Deistgod that is operative here, and we goddless have no quarrel with those good sir knights, but if they will stand in our way, they rish losing an arm or two, even though they keep coming back totally legless, trying to battle atheists.(2)

(1) I intended to resist this, but out of respect to Betty and barney Hil - they were sincere, but got talked into it, just as people get talked into thinking they were abducted or that there was (or Is) a Satanic cult in the UK (an infamous example of loonies being put in charge) . Villas boas may have believed what he claimed, but (at least to out local UFO Thinktank a few decades ago) was not true, and Soccorro has been shown to be (credibly) a hoax.

(2)... O:) you know this was coming...
LOL! I liked that video :) And thank you for your summation.

My rogue hypothesis is that "historia's" intent, in creating this thread, is to get atheists to admit the god concept is 'reasonable/rational/acceptable/other'. In doing so, (s)he can claim a small victory; and then reference this thread later, if the same atheist were later to seemingly redact, and deny logical/reasonable belief in said 'god'. But, I cannot read the mind of others, so maybe (s)he has another agenda in this thread? Maybe (s)he can expound upon the intent of the thread?

But really, it would be like me postulating the follow Q: Is it reasonable to believe in (the E.T.)?

I simply replaced (god) with (the E.T.), Asking for a simple (yes or no) seems quite pedestrian. Any thinking being might first want to know what is meant with the terms (reasonable, believe, and E.T.). Same goes for the overly generic God question. These three terms have varying degrees, levels, contexts, etc... Quite frankly, the question is too vague :)
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #152

Post by William »

Theist: Is it reasonable to believe in God?
Nontheist: The question is too vague
Other: I lack belief in GODs, and continue to study the question of GODs as they are expressed through theistic beliefs.
I understand that all those beliefs constitute ideas of GODs and altogether, are anything but 'vague' in the telling of it.
Therefore, the question "Is it reasonable to believe in God?" is understandable enough not to be vague, which is why I was able to answer the question;
William wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:52 pm
historia wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:44 pm 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.
Theists think that it is reasonable and develop ideas for it, believing those ideas to be true.

Nontheists do not think it is reasonable and develop ideas for it, believing those ideas to be true.

Others remain undecided - some continuing to study the implications of the question asked while some don't give it another thought.

Image

User avatar
Rose2020
Scholar
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:54 am
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #153

Post by Rose2020 »

[Replying to historia in post #1]

Entirely. We need meaning to our lives. Without God there is none.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #154

Post by historia »

POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:00 pm
historia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:33 am
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:54 am
I guess it would depend on the claimed God in question. Which one are you referring to?
I just mean God in the general (philosophical) sense, without regard to any specific religious conceptions of God.
Well, it depends... What does the term 'god' mean exactly?
I provided a link in my earlier reply to the Wikipedia entry on God for a definition. If that isn't sufficient for your purposes, perhaps this IEP article will suffice.
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:00 pm
If the inquisitive question asked is... "Do you believe life exists on other planets?" I'd say, it is 'reasonable' to state (yes). As "Transponder" has already pointed out, based upon the number of star/planet combinations we have in our universe, it seems 'conceivable and/or reasonable'.
Yeah, this is a good analogy. We don't yet have direct empirical evidence of life on other planets. But we can infer its existence based on our background knowledge of the universe. So, while one may not want to affirm the proposition that there is life on other planets, one can easily affirm that it is a reasonable hypothesis.

I'm just asking if we can make the same assertion about God.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1553 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #155

Post by POI »

historia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:00 pm
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:00 pm
historia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:33 am
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:54 am
I guess it would depend on the claimed God in question. Which one are you referring to?
I just mean God in the general (philosophical) sense, without regard to any specific religious conceptions of God.
Well, it depends... What does the term 'god' mean exactly?
I provided a link in my earlier reply to the Wikipedia entry on God for a definition. If that isn't sufficient for your purposes, perhaps this IEP article will suffice.
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:00 pm
If the inquisitive question asked is... "Do you believe life exists on other planets?" I'd say, it is 'reasonable' to state (yes). As "Transponder" has already pointed out, based upon the number of star/planet combinations we have in our universe, it seems 'conceivable and/or reasonable'.
Yeah, this is a good analogy. We don't yet have direct empirical evidence of life on other planets. But we can infer its existence based on our background knowledge of the universe. So, while one may not want to affirm the proposition that there is life on other planets, one can easily affirm that it is a reasonable hypothesis.

I'm just asking if we can make the same assertion about God.
I don't want to just give you a (yes or no) answer quite yet, as I feel this topic needs more exploration. As I told "Transponder", I think your question is too vague for the likes of this vast topic --- (post 151).

For starters, when you postulate a question like --- "is it reasonable to believe X?"; this open-ended question could mean so many things, such as; "is it even a possibility?" If so, you can ask this question of almost anything, as I feel you can shrug your shoulders and say; "sure, why not".

The words 'reasonable' and 'believe' are such variable terms themselves, you need to specify further as well.

You provided a link or links for 'god'. I haven't really read them yet, but I did lightly skim them, so far. And thus far, I can grant you this answer....

Sure, I cannot rule out, with 100% certainty, the unfalsifiable proposition for the presented God in these link(s) :wish:

BUT, please remember, I can also say this of 'Russell's Teapot". ---> (i.e.) "to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others"

Or, by "believe", it can also mean varying degrees of belief. Even Richard Dawkins, a publicly notable staunch ATHEIST, has been asked... "How sure are you that 'God' does not exist?" And he gave the answer of "I'm 6.5/7 sure that he does not." The believer could say he is also a "believer", just to a lesser level?

I'll stop here for now. I trust you now understand why I (may) do not need to thoroughly read the link(s) :) Meaning, if you merely want to hoist up an unfalsifiable proposition, and ask atheists if it's "reasonable to believe", I don't know how much satisfaction you will achieve? But I do ask you now... What is the intent of this thread?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #156

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Tag edits
William wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:57 pm What makes you think that the scientists are not sticking to logic? The math shows it to be the case that the fundamental nature of what we call reality, is different from how we experience it.
JK wrote: Which is why I specifically mentioned our perception, or as you say, experiences having no bearing on reality.
Never what I say Joey.

We do not know in what manner our perceptions affect/effect fundamental reality, because we do not know the fundamental nature of reality.
Meh. Reality is reality, no matter how much pseudointellectual terminology we wanna tack onto it.

It's a pretentiousness I don't seek to entertain.

I'll leave the observer to their conclusions in this matter.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #157

Post by theophile »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:57 pm
theophile wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 2:22 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Ideas and thoughts're products of a sentient, physical brain.
Products of, sure. But not contained by. Ideas can be produced, expressed, or stored by brains or other physical matter, but they have a life of their own beyond such corporeal forms.

Take atheism for example, which is equally of the spirit realm.
I've never met an atheist spirit. Nor have I ever met a spirit.

"Spirit" is where we hide our ignorance.
No, 'spirit' is where we recognize that there are two types of existence in this world, and in the process expand our knowledge by considering this broader domain of being. I'm not talking ghosts or alternate realities here, such that we ought to go visit a medium or pick up a ouija board, but something we all know from our own physical experience, because frankly we have all encountered such things before.

Again, what else is an idea (like atheism) but a non-physical form of existence? Are you telling me that the idea of atheism doesn't exist? Even if it's all in our heads, it's undeniably there, and it has a real power to affect us just like other spirit entities (e.g., values, dreams, etc.).

So get over your bias against the biblical terminology already (the word 'spirit'), because I'm not saying anything unreasonable here. There is a physical world, which is comprised of matter, governed by natural laws, and measurable through science (all of which has nothing to do with God), and there is the spiritual, call it an immanent but also emergent world of ideas and other insubstantial things that have an identifiable existence that isn't reducible to their physical form.

Take justice as another example (if atheism was too simplistic). There is an idea of justice that can be abstracted from any writings on the matter, acts of retribution, or actual court verdicts. It motivates (/affects!) those who write about it, act, or rule on its behalf. Entire movements can form around it and for the sake of it! (See 'Me Too' for example.)

So are you saying there isn't an idea of justice? Or that some non-physical thing, let's call it justice, doesn't transpire in the moment of a fair ruling or comeuppance?

My only point in all this is that if we want to debate the reasonableness of God, we have to first recognize that God is originally of a spiritual form (like justice). I'm not saying there is some conscious / intelligent being out there called God that has always existed and directed our ways (some 'cosmic mind' as others keep implying), but something much more basic and intuitive than that. There have been no arguments offered against such an existence yet except statements of a crass materialism, but even in a materialist framework we can differentiate physical from spiritual matter and my point remains. It's in the latter category that we find God and assert a basic existence.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:57 pm
theophile wrote: Fair enough if so. I suppose this debate does go to the very origins of philosophy and science (see Raphael's School of Athens for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens).

(But hey, at least Aristotle, that great scientist, recognized the importance of this non-material substance, and called its study First Philosophy / Theology. :))
We have no way of knowing what Aristotle thinks about such things, in light of humanity's vastly increased knowledge, since his untimely demise.
So, by such logic (of avoidance), should we never consult the past or recognize its wisdom? Should people 1000 years from now disregard everything we say today? Should we all just accept our own ignorance and shut up already? ... That is the natural conclusion of your point here, so why debate at all or take a position?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:57 pm
Theophile wrote: Is atheism a hope and a wish? It's squarely in the domain of philosophy and theology.
See the universal theory of atheism above.

I reckon though, it's my wish, my hope, to have theists stop imposing their beliefs on folks through threats of eternal damnation, the courts, and such other dastardly means. But since other theists've expressed the same sentiment...
Have I ever imposed or threatened? Please don't generalize theism based on what we'd all probably agree are deplorable acts. Unless you have a broader point here other than making some cheap shot?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #158

Post by TRANSPONDER »

POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:10 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:34 pm
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:00 pm
historia wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:33 am
POI wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:54 am
historia wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:52 pm
POI wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:31 pm
historia wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:44 pm 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.
Or, is it reasonable to believe life exists on other planets? :) But there exists a HUGE disparity between me reasonably believing, verses being reasonably convinced. Same goes for 'god.' 'Reasonable' seems to be a very low standard, when faced with the question of supposing a "life-changing god'.
So, your answer to my question is 'Yes'?
I guess it would depend on the claimed God in question. Which one are you referring to?
I just mean God in the general (philosophical) sense, without regard to any specific religious conceptions of God.
Well, it depends... What does the term 'god' mean exactly? I mean, really... I have to circle you back to (post 129).

Let's flesh this out for a minute...

If the inquisitive question asked is... "Do you believe life exists on other planets?" I'd say, it is 'reasonable' to state (yes). As "Transponder" has already pointed out, based upon the number of star/planet combinations we have in our universe, it seems 'conceivable and/or reasonable'. But really, that just becomes a talking point, as I find it less conceivable any such 'alien life' has ever made contact with earth -- EVEN THOUGH we have countless documented 'sightings', testimonials, writings, etc.... Sound familiar? Hint hint -- (the specific god you likely believe exists/interacts)....But yea, there may exist intelligent or unintelligent life elsewhere, besides earth?.?.?.?

Are you getting the picture yet?. If you are curious as to whether I could get on board with mere "deism" and/or "theism"? Well, I 'guess' it is 'reasonable/conceivable/possible/other'? But how 'reasonable/conceivable/possible/other? But the question almost becomes too generic, until you start digging a bit... You need to clarify 'reasonable' and 'god', for starters. And once you do this, we can have a real discussion. Otherwise, it's about as useful as asking "is (this or that) even possible/reasonable? It depends....
Very good - as one would expect. It is a point i didn't consider. Yes, ET life is a logically and evidentially good bet (like the Higgs -Boson, Black holes and Tiktaalik until they were actually found, and Abogenesis, Dark Matter, and something from nothing, which is not yet proven. The possibility opf an intelligent ET that might contact us is far lower, but stiill quite plausible. And ET Saucer -pilots actually being here, though anecdotally ought to be compelling has actually turned out to be not, Crop circles having failed, the research methods flawed (never mind so many that look fake) and even the Big Three (Socorro, Villas Boas and the Hills (1) being debunked.

Now with 'God' we can deal with 'what does 'God' mean. Either a religious (name your own) or non religious Cosmic mind. Simple - like atheism. Either of those cover all manner of sub- divisions, remote deist or interative intelligent nature? In either sae, the argument is the same. The evidence that one would exect isn't there and the evidence is, remarkably like the UFO evidence - debunked, delusionary, or spurious.
Not that Deistgod -theist or even Intelligent nature fanciers have to be (as irreligious theists) at odds with atheists (or non -theists) as regards religion. But sooften they want to use deism or ireligious theism (aka "Agnostic") as alaughable attempt to debunk atheism, "If a Deistgod is real, atheism is false". Yes, dudes, :D but you haven't a damn' scrap of evidence to prove that it Is true. You are only invited in the atheist summer -camp, precinct because you are irreligious; Dammit, we even give day -passes to religious humanists and Christian evolutionists, providing they don't deface the atheist books in the Library.
.
The arguments for Deistgod or intelligent nature are no better than the Christian (or Islam) ones, (Kalam, Anselm or Ontological arguments) though we don't get the leap of Faith to a Holy Book.

That is perhaps the equivalent of possible ET life. But Religious evidence is - like UFO evidence - initially persuasive. But under examination, turns out to be far less so. The Bibler debunked, miracles debunked, various extra biblical claims debunked. In fact nothing and less than nothing. But that said, it's more the case for Deistgod that is operative here, and we goddless have no quarrel with those good sir knights, but if they will stand in our way, they rish losing an arm or two, even though they keep coming back totally legless, trying to battle atheists.(2)

(1) I intended to resist this, but out of respect to Betty and barney Hil - they were sincere, but got talked into it, just as people get talked into thinking they were abducted or that there was (or Is) a Satanic cult in the UK (an infamous example of loonies being put in charge) . Villas boas may have believed what he claimed, but (at least to out local UFO Thinktank a few decades ago) was not true, and Soccorro has been shown to be (credibly) a hoax.

(2)... O:) you know this was coming...
LOL! I liked that video :) And thank you for your summation.

My rogue hypothesis is that "historia's" intent, in creating this thread, is to get atheists to admit the god concept is 'reasonable/rational/acceptable/other'. In doing so, (s)he can claim a small victory; and then reference this thread later, if the same atheist were later to seemingly redact, and deny logical/reasonable belief in said 'god'. But, I cannot read the mind of others, so maybe (s)he has another agenda in this thread? Maybe (s)he can expound upon the intent of the thread?

But really, it would be like me postulating the follow Q: Is it reasonable to believe in (the E.T.)?

I simply replaced (god) with (the E.T.), Asking for a simple (yes or no) seems quite pedestrian. Any thinking being might first want to know what is meant with the terms (reasonable, believe, and E.T.). Same goes for the overly generic God question. These three terms have varying degrees, levels, contexts, etc... Quite frankly, the question is too vague :)
I may guess at the agenda as it looks familiar - Wangle a creator onto the debate table as a credible supposition. "Cosmic Origins" is favorite, but an unproven credible (like ET Life somewhere)

It may be used to prove (by analogy - my Dream is to have 'analogy used as evidence declared a logical fallacy) that a Cosmic Mind ("God") is plausible, whether or not that has the Leap of Faith to the Bible (or Quran). Which is why I argued that the indirect evidence is that ET life is as credible a bet as Abiogenesis and we can explain why, whereas the evidence for an Intelligent creator is little or none (Constants, Goldilocks zone and 'what other explanation is there?' Infinite recession is a handy starting point, but of course leads to 'who created God?'.

'God is eternal'

'Then the universe could be eternal.'

'That's absurd.'

'Then it's absurd to have an eternal God.'

'No it isn't, God is eternal by definition'.

'Then an eternal universe could be eternal by definition'.

"No..no...no...let me think... Ah... Nothing can come from nothing."

"Then God cannot come from nothing."

"No, God is Eternal."

That's a sample of it, I don't suppose you want any more, as Gandalf says of Gollum's talk. Which is why I argue that logically a sorta eternal Cosmos (not to be confused with our own universe) multiplies less logical entities than a complex god with no origin. And 'Nothing contains energy' experiments is indirect evidence that Something can come indeed from 'Nothing' (a vacuum). For all we know (and there is evidence for this) nothing comes from nothing all the time, but we think it doesn't because we don't see it. A human misperception of the kind that theists harp on to try to discredit science. But it actually discredits the human misunderstandings that support Theist beliefs.

I tried to explain that to a Theist here some time ago but it was like talking to a brick wall.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 737 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #159

Post by benchwarmer »

Rose2020 wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:31 pm [Replying to historia in post #1]

Entirely. We need meaning to our lives. Without God there is none.
I don't know why some theists keep repeating this.

I have plenty of meaning without your god. In fact, I'm free to define and find all sorts of things that give me meaning regardless of what any theist might believe their god wants.

However, I will say, for theists that believe there is no meaning outside of belief in their god, I highly suggest remaining a theist. If you are unable to find meaning otherwise (or in the case of some theists who suppose there's no reason not to murder/steal/rape/etc otherwise), please stay a theist. As an atheist I have no desire to deconvert theists in general, and certainly don't want theists who would 'go off the rails' and feel they no longer have meaning or reason to behave morally.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 737 times

Re: Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Post #160

Post by benchwarmer »

historia wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:44 pm 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.
My answer is simple: No.

That is based on the assumption (due to the capitalization and the forum we are in) that we are talking about the god defined in the Christian Bible. I don't find it reasonable to believe based on:

1) The Bible is full of contradictions so is not useful evidence for a god and particularly not the one portrayed.
2) The god in the Bible commits horrible acts IMHO and it is not reasonable for me to have better morals than a god.
3) There is no verifiable, believable (to me) evidence that any such god exists.

So, no, for me it is not reasonable. Could a god exist? Perhaps, I don't know, but that's not the question.

Now, is it reasonable for someone else to believe in a god? Sure, if they have limited information and don't want to look too closely at all the problems. For them, it's reasonable until it isn't. That's what happened to me. When I was a Christian, I thought it was reasonable (obviously). After learning a lot more, I no longer find it reasonable.

Post Reply