Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[schaeffer]

I don’t think that most people would come to believe in a particular concept of god through objective reason alone.

It seems that at some point most people have an “a ha!” moment and experience that seals the deal in one direction or another for them.

Meaning that moment/experience might give them the “reason” to believe in a particular concept of god or to disbelieve.

Some people never have an experience that sways them in either direction.

It might be like falling in love. To us the “reason” we fell might make all kinds of sense and seem very reasonable, but to a third party observer…it might seem totally unreasonable.

If I had a particular convincing experience with a particular deity, it would seem reasonable to believe. Brings Thomas the Apostle to mind.

 

[Hans_W]

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.

As a scientist I really object to this scientist=evolutionist=atheist view.

It is insulting, and if you don’t know anything about science, then please keep it to yourself. There are millions of believing scientists out there, including “evolutionists”. Actually, the Catholic Church fully accepts the theistic evolution approach to the diversity of life on this planet. But let’s not degenerate this thread into an evolution vs. creationism debate. See my Post #6.

By the way, the Big Bang has been discovered by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest. We should be proud to have people like that in our community. The Catholic Church has been very open to the latest discoveries coming from science. We certainly don’t want to look at the world through Ken Ham’s glasses.

 

[abucs]

We should be specific about what we mean by ‘belief in God’

if we mean that the universe and its laws were created by a rational being or beings, then yes, I think it is rational to believe in God.

I would go further though. Once you develop to a certain level of scientific and logical reasoning, it becomes irrational not to believe in God.

 

[CarmelJerome]

It’s irrational to believe that everyone else in the world has always been fooled by myth or coerced by rulers into believing that the universe is governed by a power or power which is greater than nature; It is natural to believe that supernatural agency exists, and is against common human nature to dismiss belief in such agency. It’s only the modern rulers who have used all the power of the press and education to compel people to disown the normative cry the soul raises to that which is beyond us.

Rational exercise comes into the question of the exact nature of the power(s) to which we appeal, towards which we wish to express our gratitude, vent our fury, or ask for assistance.

 

[miguel]

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.

I guess I’m reacting to the “science has no say”. I don’t think science has all the answers. But I also think some of the observations of science can legitimately be used to draw conclusions. Newton’s law of motion stated that a body at rest stays at rest unless a force is applied to move it. St Thomas used a very similar idea in his first proof for the existence of God that things don’t move themselves. And he was a bit earlier than Newton. And they are also part of our common sense experience. I’m an engineer. Engineers use different types of sensors in the design of engineering systems. These sensors detect all kinds of things…pressure, temperature, strain, fluid flow, voltage, current are some examples. Why do we use these sensors? For two main reasons: situation awareness, and command and control. For example, a common thermostat in your house detects temperature and turns the heater or AC on and off to control the temperature. We don’t conclude that these things come into existence all by themselves. That would be absurd. The human body has a variety of sensors for the same basic reasons as the engineering system. Science studies these amazing biological features and recognizes they are part of an architecture. And an architecture is evidence of an architect. God Bless.

 

[PMVCatholic]

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!

I think you may have the wrong impression of the Big Bang. The “Big Bang” refers to the moment the universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago. Far from being contrary to the existence of God, the Big Bang actually supports the existence of God by forcing us to face the fact that the universe had an absolute beginning (rather than being eternal in the past).

 

[PMVCatholic]

I don’t think that most people would come to believe in a particular concept of god through objective reason alone.

It seems that at some point most people have an “a ha!” moment and experience that seals the deal in one direction or another for them.

Meaning that moment/experience might give them the “reason” to believe in a particular concept of god or to disbelieve.

Some people never have an experience that sways them in either direction.

It might be like falling in love. To us the “reason” we fell might make all kinds of sense and seem very reasonable, but to a third party observer…it might seem totally unreasonable.

If I had a particular convincing experience with a particular deity, it would seem reasonable to believe. Brings Thomas the Apostle to mind.

Thank you for bringing up Thomas the Apostle. I think that his experience is very relevant to this topic. “Blessed are those who have not seen, and still believed.”

-Phil

 

[tomas195555]

I think you may have the wrong impression of the Big Bang. The “Big Bang” refers to the moment the universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago. Far from being contrary to the existence of God, the Big Bang actually supports the existence of God by forcing us to face the fact that the universe had an absolute beginning (rather than being eternal in the past).

Hmmm food for thought?

 

[PMVCatholic]

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.

Reminds me of this verse: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

-Phil

 

[PMVCatholic]

I would go further though. Once you develop to a certain level of scientific and logical reasoning, it becomes irrational not to believe in God.

Could you please elaborate on this? This is precisely what I’m looking for.

-Phil

 

[Hans_W]

I guess I’m reacting to the “science has no say”. I don’t think science has all the answers.

Not at all. Science doesn’t tell us about beauty, joy, love, morality, sin, our purpose in life, etc. etc.

But I also think some of the observations of science can legitimately be used to draw conclusions. Newton’s law of motion stated that a body at rest stays at rest unless a force is applied to move it. St Thomas used a very similar idea in his first proof for the existence of God that things don’t move themselves. And he was a bit earlier than Newton. And they are also part of our common sense experience.

Just be careful here. The universe doesn’t work on common sense. That’s exactly what science tells us. Just look up to the sky and tell me, is the sun moving or the earth?

Aquinas’ Prime Mover argument is built on common sense, but is not compelling. Many theologians have been working on this, not just atheists.

I’m an engineer. Engineers use different types of sensors in the design of engineering systems. These sensors detect all kinds of things…pressure, temperature, strain, fluid flow, voltage, current are some examples. Why do we use these sensors? For two main reasons: situation awareness, and command and control. For example, a common thermostat in your house detects temperature and turns the heater or AC on and off to control the temperature. We don’t conclude that these things come into existence all by themselves. That would be absurd. The human body has a variety of sensors for the same basic reasons as the engineering system. Science studies these amazing biological features and recognizes they are part of an architecture. And an architecture is evidence of an architect. God Bless.

That’s the Argument from Design. Appealing to an engineer, but God is not an engineer. No, that doesn’t hold either as a proof for God’s existence.

 

[Amandil]

Aquinas’ Prime Mover argument is built on common sense, but is not compelling. Many theologians have been working on this, not just atheists.

A lot of people, including atheists, do not understand Thomas well enough to understand his Prime Mover argument. They spend hours and pages taking apart a strawman they’ve built.

 

[miguel]

Not at all. Science doesn’t tell us about beauty, joy, love, morality, sin, our purpose in life, etc. etc.

Just be careful here. The universe doesn’t work on common sense. That’s exactly what science tells us. Just look up to the sky and tell me, is the sun moving or the earth?

Aquinas’ Prime Mover argument is built on common sense, but is not compelling. Many theologians have been working on this, not just atheists.

That’s the Argument from Design. Appealing to an engineer, but God is not an engineer. No, that doesn’t hold either as a proof for God’s existence.

Of course God is an engineer. He’s the perfect engineer…St Thomas’ 4th proof of the existence of God…the arguement from degrees of perfection. God Bless.

 

[glendab]

I am rational.

I believe God exists.

Am I wrong to believe this?

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Phil.

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

Science does prove God exists each and every time it witnesses and testifies in favor of a miracle. It provides the proofs that something out of the ordinary has occurred and it is part of the process whereby the Church declares that an actual miracle has happened. Look into the way this happens, whether in the Canonization process for a particular Saint or the myriads of miracles of healing that occur in places like Lourdes and Fatima, etc. The Church uses sciences to prove God acted in this world in a miraculous manner.

Glenda

 

[abucs]

Could you please elaborate on this? This is precisely what I’m looking for.

-Phil

Hi PMV,

The elaboration could go on for quite a while. Feel free to send me a private message if you like (or we can write here).

To begin elaboration.
Disclosure: I have a science degree and education degree and have worked a long time in the computer industry and lately a few years as a teacher. I was raised a Catholic and drifted off into agnosticism and then a passive atheism.

What jolted me back to accepting there is a Creator (God) was my personal study of quantum physics and my conclusion that the laws of physics are written in such a way that it takes into consideration the fact of consciousness.

To my mind previously, consciousness should have been an accidental emergent property rather than a fundamental component in the laws of physics.

Specifically this is known in physics as ‘The Observer Effect’.

I figured (rationally )

1. If the Laws of physics are universal and have been with us since the beginning of the Universe;
2. and if those laws in part are determined by consciousness,
3. then I think it is rational to accept that consciousness has been with us since at least the beginning of the Universe.

As physicist Templeton Prize winner Paul Davies said - it is as if the laws of physics saw us coming.

or

As the Nobel Prize winner for physics Eugene Wigner said - I could not formulate the laws of quantum physics without regards to consciousness.

It takes quite a while to come up to speed with all of the ideas and experiments.

There are also other more simpler logical arguments which support the rationality of believing in God which may or may not interest you.

But it was the Observer Effect in quantum physics which (finally) convinced me that atheism is scientifically untenable.

 

[adawgj]

In my opinion it is rational to believe that God exists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is a famous rationalist who thought it was rational to believe that God exists.

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” Albert Einstein

“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein

 

[PMVCatholic]

Hi PMV,

The elaboration could go on for quite a while. Feel free to send me a private message if you like (or we can write here).

To begin elaboration.
Disclosure: I have a science degree and education degree and have worked a long time in the computer industry and lately a few years as a teacher. I was raised a Catholic and drifted off into agnosticism and then a passive atheism.

What jolted me back to accepting there is a Creator (God) was my personal study of quantum physics and my conclusion that the laws of physics are written in such a way that it takes into consideration the fact of consciousness.

To my mind previously, consciousness should have been an accidental emergent property rather than a fundamental component in the laws of physics.

Specifically this is known in physics as ‘The Observer Effect’.

I figured (rationally )

1. If the Laws of physics are universal and have been with us since the beginning of the Universe;
2. and if those laws in part are determined by consciousness,
3. then I think it is rational to accept that consciousness has been with us since at least the beginning of the Universe.

As physicist Templeton Prize winner Paul Davies said - it is as if the laws of physics saw us coming.

or

As the Nobel Prize winner for physics Eugene Wigner said - I could not formulate the laws of quantum physics without regards to consciousness.

It takes quite a while to come up to speed with all of the ideas and experiments.

There are also other more simpler logical arguments which support the rationality of believing in God which may or may not interest you.

But it was the Observer Effect in quantum physics which (finally) convinced me that atheism is scientifically untenable.

Thank you very much for your reply. I find it very interesting that the very thing several scientists use to argue against the existence of God (quantum physics) is actually what helped you to grow in your faith that He exists.

-Phil

 

[PMVCatholic]

Here is a famous rationalist who thought it was rational to believe that God exists.

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” Albert Einstein

“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein

I’ve actually never heard of those quotes before. Thank you very much for sharing these; they’re very insightful.

-Phil