Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[PMVCatholic]

Or would you say it is more rational to believe God doesn’t exist based on lack of sufficient evidence? I understand that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, given that science uses empirical evidence within the observable universe to reach conclusions. God, being supernatural by nature, could never be proven by empirical means. However, I still believe that one could possibly come to the conclusion that God exists using reason. That being said, I still wonder what is more reasonable: believing that God exists, or not believing. Both take faith. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be much appreciated.

-Phil

 

[Auntie_A]

Many great thinkers used reason to prove Gods existence.

By just the simple observations: "It’s got to come from something. " or “everything has a beginning; who began the beginning?” " How did an ear come into being? By accident? "

These rational questions can lead to belief. "Proving " might be another thing. But the rational arguments can lead to belief in God.

 

[randomusername]

The eye, for example, evolving without some sort of intelligent design or guidance would be impossible. There are other things like in animals and the world that that hint at intelligent design. Google it.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

With a name like Phil, you got to be a good guy,haven’t met a bad phil yet,

The Existence of a God is I believe , something you can't prove by pen and paper using mathematical equations ,, no matter how fancy your Calculator is,,,

It’s more of a feeling I feel in my inner being, something you can’t put into words,
Something that defies words of explanation,
I think it is Rational to believe in the existence of God, if I can ever explain it with a calculator ,pen & paper,then I’ll. get back to you,

 

[PMVCatholic]

Many great thinkers used reason to prove Gods existence.

By just the simple observations: "It’s got to come from something. " or “everything has a beginning; who began the beginning?” " How did an ear come into being? By accident? "

These rational questions can lead to belief. "Proving " might be another thing. But the rational arguments can lead to belief in God.

I think the Cosmological argument is one of the strongest. However, many physics argue that it could be equally rational to believe the Universe (laws of physics and quantum mechanics) are uncaused.

As for the argument for design, it is peculiar that some things, like the human ear/eye, have come into being in a seemingly random process. However, many scientists still don’t think this necessitates a divine intelligence.

 

[Hans_W]

Or would you say it is more rational to believe God doesn’t exist based on lack of sufficient evidence? I understand that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, given that science uses empirical evidence within the observable universe to reach conclusions. God, being supernatural by nature, could never be proven by empirical means. However, I still believe that one could possibly come to the conclusion that God exists using reason. That being said, I still wonder what is more reasonable: believing that God exists, or not believing. Both take faith. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be much appreciated.

-Phil

As you state correctly, science has no say on this question.

However, science, because of its obvious successes, is seen by many as giving us all the answers, all possible knowledge - if not already, certainly at some future point, at least in principle.

This argument is common among non-scientists, because they don’t know the limits of science. It is also popular among non-believing scientists. They use it knowingly or because they are also not familiar with philosophy of science. Richard Dawkins is probably the most prominent example. He is familiar to everybody.

Then there are others - the physicist Frank Tipler is probably he worst offender - who want to use science to prove the existence of God. The Intelligent Design movement is another example.

All these views which drag science into this questions give science a bad image and don’t lead to sound theology either.

In the end, yes, the belief in God rests on faith. Philosophy of religion looks at all those arguments. I also find it useful to listen to debates between Christians and atheists, read their books etc. It’s probably not recommendable if your faith stands on shaky ground. For me it has helped me to strengthen my faith when I look at all the arguments and counterarguments.

 

[Richard_White]

The only rational thing, the only reasonable thing, is to believe in God and the He created everything that exists, that ever did exist, and that ever will exist. We DIDN’T just pop out of thin air.

God created us and we must believe this. I certainly do!

 

[PMVCatholic]

With a name like Phil, you got to be a good guy,haven’t met a bad phil yet,

The Existence of a God is I believe , something you can't prove by pen and paper using mathematical equations ,, no matter how fancy your Calculator is,,,

It’s more of a feeling I feel in my inner being, something you can’t put into words,
Something that defies words of explanation,
I think it is Rational to believe in the existence of God, if I can ever explain it with a calculator ,pen & paper,then I’ll. get back to you,

Hey, Phil! I have one problem with your statement. I don’t think feelings are a good basis for belief. We should strive to believe what is true. Feelings are fleeting, but truth is in un-changing.

-Phil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Or would you say it is more rational to believe God doesn’t exist based on lack of sufficient evidence? I understand that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, given that science uses empirical evidence within the observable universe to reach conclusions. God, being supernatural by nature, could never be proven by empirical means. However, I still believe that one could possibly come to the conclusion that God exists using reason. That being said, I still wonder what is more reasonable: believing that God exists, or not believing. Both take faith. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be much appreciated.

-Phil

I am always puzzeled when Catholics ask this question. Makes me wonder if they have had any Catholic instruction at all, have they not read the Catechism? Let me answer this way. Both the Nicene and the Apostle’s Creed declare, " I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth…"

Secondly, the Church has declared solemnly ,
" III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church

36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” ( CCC, Part 1, chapter I, article III, paragraph 36 )

So yes, it is most rational to believe that God exists, both because our reason is able to reach this conclusion by resoning from the things that exist, and secondly because God has Revealed this truth in his Divine Revelation, and it is most reasonable to believe what God himself has revealed, because God does not lie.

THE REVELATION OF GOD

51 “It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.” ( CCC, Part 1, chapter II, article 1, paragraph 51 )

Linus2nd

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Hey, Phil! I have one problem with your statement. I don’t think feelings are a good basis for belief. We should strive to believe what is true. Feelings are fleeting, but truth is in un-changing.

-Phil

It’s not a feeling as you would want coffee and a bite to eat,
It’s a spiritual feeling in your inner being, like a magnetic force that absorbs you,
It’s hard to explain, I just know it’s a part of me,
How's the weather in. Ireland,?

 

[Hans_W]

The only rational thing, the only reasonable thing, is to believe in God and the He created everything that exists, that ever did exist, and that ever will exist. We DIDN’T just pop out of thin air.

God created us and we must believe this. I certainly do!

It doesn’t do any harm to look at both sides of the argument. There are highly intelligent people who argue against God’s existence. Following their thinking and coming up with counterarguments has helped many to get a deeper understanding, leading to a deeper faith.

 

[Amandil]

With a name like Phil, you got to be a good guy,haven’t met a bad phil yet,

The Existence of a God is I believe , something you can't prove by pen and paper using mathematical equations ,, no matter how fancy your Calculator is,,,

It’s more of a feeling I feel in my inner being, something you can’t put into words,
Something that defies words of explanation,
I think it is Rational to believe in the existence of God, if I can ever explain it with a calculator ,pen & paper,then I’ll. get back to you,

To me the question is no different than asking if its rational to believe that reality exists, or is it rational to believe that you/I exist?

It’s only in these modern times, where the constant flood of information and disinformation has bred such utter confusion and the constant reiteration of absolute individual autonomy, that many has convinced themselves that they are gods in themselves, so any belief of any other “god” outside of themselves is irrational.

It’s exactly what the devils want.

 

[PMVCatholic]

I am always puzzeled when Catholics ask this question. Makes me wonder if they have had any Catholic instruction at all, have they not read the Catechism? Let me answer this way. Both the Nicene and the Apostle’s Creed declare, " I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth…"

Secondly, the Church has declared solemnly ,
" III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church

36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” ( CCC, Part 1, chapter I, article III, paragraph 36 )

So yes, it is most rational to believe that God exists, both because our reason is able to reach this conclusion by resoning from the things that exist, and secondly because God has Revealed this truth in his Divine Revelation, and it is most reasonable to believe what God himself has revealed, because God does not lie.

THE REVELATION OF GOD

51 “It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.” ( CCC, Part 1, chapter II, article 1, paragraph 51 )

Linus2nd

I am familiar with the church’s teachings on this issue. However, the reason I ask this question is because I believe it paramount to whether or not the teachings of the church are valid in the first place. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[PMVCatholic]

It’s not a feeling as you would want coffee and a bite to eat,
It’s a spiritual feeling in your inner being, like a magnetic force that absorbs you,
It’s hard to explain, I just know it’s a part of me,

How's the weather in. Ireland,?

It’s unfortunate that those feelings are few are far between among the general public.

-Phil

 

[PMVCatholic]

-]/-]

It doesn’t do any harm to look at both sides of the argument. There are highly intelligent people who argue against God’s existence. Following their thinking and coming up with counterarguments has helped many to get a deeper understanding, leading to a deeper faith.

I couldn’t agree more. I have looked extensively into the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and others and found that they actually have valid points. In my opinion, this is the most important question in human society, next to the meaning of life.

-Phil

 

[tomas195555]

Or would you say it is more rational to believe God doesn’t exist based on lack of sufficient evidence? I understand that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, given that science uses empirical evidence within the observable universe to reach conclusions. God, being supernatural by nature, could never be proven by empirical means. However, I still believe that one could possibly come to the conclusion that God exists using reason. That being said, I still wonder what is more reasonable: believing that God exists, or not believing. Both take faith. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be much appreciated.

-Phil

HERESY!
hehe ok now that I got that out of my system, let me tell you WHY science HAS proven God exist, let me take a deep breath now;
1st lets deal with the does he REALLY exist question. NO manner of
lightning strikes or cosmic souping can create that which is SELF EVIDENT in what YOU SEE everyday. Beings and creatures CREATED from scratch. Biological beings ALL of whom are symbiotic (connected to each other in some way no matter how loosely, systems built upon systems which ENABLES Life to exist.) You know the oxygen the trees give you, and the carbon dioxide you give them back in return. Science is well aware of the existence of a cell… a cell which is given instructions to create a Living breathing
biologic. from toes to hair … precise, no extra parts or junk code. not ONLY does it replicate creating human bones, BUT it must have additional software to produce EVERY hair, tissue, muscle and yes … Brain. at some point in time order MUST exist to pull all of these things together to create a majesty of the human form. But it doesn’t stop there … no the rabbit hole goes MUCH deeper when your hit with the neurosciences … wham … consciousness, ( the physical operated by the nonphysical … that part of you which you CALL you?) AND it’s fine tuned to the world in which you live. Light passes through the most advanced camera the world has ever seen. light sends digital units into the eye down the optic nerve and BAM, livestream, real time, 3D all the time! We have only just begun to understand HOW to produce 3D effects, a thing God GAVE you and all humans at birth … I don’t care who you are once you give real thought to that, AND are being intellectually honesty with yourself …NO WAY that happened by accident. Here’s another thing, Doesn’t the fact that billions of creatures existing in the entirety of the Globe, only YOUR species has the ability of self awareness, conscious thought? Your not able to pick it from birth BUT you DO get to call the shots, from your favorite
ice cream to the people and words your gonna listen too.The Bible IS the word of God … and no doubt he Loves you and sent his Son to DIE for you. He makes His willingness to
save you from yourself and the sins of the world plain in Romans 10. But here’s the thing. He will not deny you your right to choose WHICH God you will serve, The Lord of Lords, and King of Kings … or The Lord of SELF. one leads to Heaven, the other? well lets just say for those who have WILLFULLY pinned there hopes upon there being NOTHING after death? (SIGH), Hell is where they WILL be. I know many humans do not believe in Hell, and that’s truly a pity, cause that’s where their going anyway. You see Hell and Heaven exist, and unfortunately or fortunately depending on which side you standing on … their existence are NOT EFFECTED by what you CHOOSE to believe. I end with this question: Isn’t the threat of Hell, WORTH getting into scripture, talking with God, asking the Savior to SHOW you the truth, the way and the Life? Many are going to Hell now SIMPLY because of blind skepticism, they LISTEN to a dying world. I beseech you … SEEK the answer FOR YOURSELF, after all WHEN you stand before the Lord, as we all will,
you will be standing WITH Christ at you side or ALONE. If WITH Christ you will be embraced by the the Father for a job well done, if ALONE … (Sigh)!

 

[Frankenfurter]

That is a loaded question. You might as well ask if it is irrational to believe in God.

The claim of being irrational is usually an argument stopper. You can’t argue with an irrational person.

I hear this claim from atheists. They just dismiss the belief in God as irrational and label the believer accordingly. Thus ends the discussion.

It is a false choice to force one to say if it is rational or irrational to believe in God.

Should I ask my 2 year old if it is rational for him to believe that I love him? Does my love for him exist?

Those seeking God must learn that to know him, you must use your intellect sure, but that is not enough. God is love. You know him with your whole self.

 

[sscott]

It is not rational to believe in God. “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” - Stuart Chase.

 

[808Catholic]

Or would you say it is more rational to believe God doesn’t exist based on lack of sufficient evidence? I understand that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, given that science uses empirical evidence within the observable universe to reach conclusions. God, being supernatural by nature, could never be proven by empirical means. However, I still believe that one could possibly come to the conclusion that God exists using reason. That being said, I still wonder what is more reasonable: believing that God exists, or not believing. Both take faith. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be much appreciated.

-Phil

There are some really helpful debates on YouTube between scientists/evolutionists and apologetics/creationists. While the format is a little hard to follow at times, watch them with your “scientist glasses” on meaning like you want to support the scientist side. Then watch the debate again with the “Catholic glasses” on. See what you think because, though God created us rational, it didn’t appear to me that the scientist side EVER won any of these debates!

Science supports God’s existence because there is no logical alternative that can be offered without God.

I recall a debate where Bill Nye (the Science Guy) was trying to prove the big bang theory and how astrophysists “heard” a radio frequency in the background of the universe. Bill Nye claimed it was the left over radiation from a tremendous explosion proving the big bang theory was correct. How did he know this unidentified and previously untheorized radiation was a residual? He didn’t. He surmised along with the scientists who to this day cannot identify the origin of the radiation that it must be so because it’s not God’s doing.

Science glasses interpretation: the background radiation is a new form of energy of unknown origin that was discovered by science.

Catholic glasses interpretation: the background radiation is a manifestation of God’s creation and we’ve “discovered” it because He allowed us to at this time.

How many other examples of man’s hubris misinterpreting God’s existence has happened? Don’t know but God does! Keep the faith, trust in God, and have a Blessed Day.

 

[tomas195555]

There are some really helpful debates on YouTube between scientists/evolutionists and apologetics/creationists. While the format is a little hard to follow at times, watch them with your “scientist glasses” on meaning like you want to support the scientist side. Then watch the debate again with the “Catholic glasses” on. See what you think because, though God created us rational, it didn’t appear to me that the scientist side EVER won any of these debates!

Science supports God’s existence because there is no logical alternative that can be offered without God.

I recall a debate where Bill Nye (the Science Guy) was trying to prove the big bang theory and how astrophysists “heard” a radio frequency in the background of the universe. Bill Nye claimed it was the left over radiation from a tremendous explosion proving the big bang theory was correct. How did he know this unidentified and previously untheorized radiation was a residual? He didn’t. He surmised along with the scientists who to this day cannot identify the origin of the radiation that it must be so because it’s not God’s doing.

Science glasses interpretation: the background radiation is a new form of energy of unknown origin that was discovered by science.

Catholic glasses interpretation: the background radiation is a manifestation of God’s creation and we’ve “discovered” it because He allowed us to at this time.

How many other examples of man’s hubris misinterpreting God’s existence has happened? Don’t know but God does! Keep the faith, trust in God, and have a Blessed Day.

There is no big bang … it was created by God. once a person delves into the human cell and discover the vast amount of data that is provide in a single DNA strand it becomes very easy to accept the genesis account!