Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Charlemagne_III]

Not sure why you provided that website.

 

[Aloysium]

usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/index.cfm
My original point was simply that we can’t use the alleged events in the Exodus as evidence for God because there is evidence they didn’t actually happen.

The argument one usually sees is the converse - that since there is no proof that Exodus and other events described in scripture, ever took place, there is no evidence that the God of Abraham exists.

Exodus does not provide proof for the existence of God. There is no need. That He exists, I find irrefutable - the evidence is everywhere, in the reality that anything exists at all.
The teachings of the Church reveal His nature and the the nature of the relationship we have with Him.

 

[Aloysium]

I checked out your link:

Were you referring to:

Know what the Bible is – and what it isn’t. The Bible is the story of God’s relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation.

The Bible is so much more than the one dimensional stories and opinions, the biases and limitations of history, science and politics. These are unreal in comparison to the Truth revealed in scripture. As the article mentions, prayer and the grace of the Holy Spirit allow one to understand what is written. By no means does “not a ‘history text, a science book’” mean that the events did not happen or that it does not speak to the most concrete of realities.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This feels like you’re grasping at straws. Even if the scholarly consensus was that the biblical account was accurate with regards to the big picture, that would constitute only the flimsiest of evidence for the alleged miracles.

You do understand that this admission undermines your argument concerning the “dishonesty” of some biblical scholars, right?

If true that the biblical account “constitute only the flimsiest of evidence for the alleged miracles” then any denial of the biblical account only offers the flimsiest of evidence against miracles, which is a tacit admission that the archeologists in question, if they are at all reasonable about the issue, could very well have other, independent, reasons for doing research on Biblical accounts - not simply to prove “alleged miracles.” That admission means your objection to them pursuing archeology for the sake of understanding the biblical account isn’t about proving or disproving the alleged miracles, but because you have problems with them consciously setting out to corroborate the “big picture” of the biblical account.

This is the reason, I suspect, that you resorted to calling the site “dishonest” for attempting to demonstrate how an independently arrived at “conclusion” might be true.

Again, the point being that it may be that these archeologists have arrived at conclusions about the biblical accounts based on more than mere archeological evidence but are looking for archeological evidence to support what they believe on other grounds to be true.

That does not strike me as dishonest, just being thorough.

I don’t need to, the scholarly consensus is that the story isn’t accurate. You are, of course, free to deny this fact just like creationists are free to deny the evidence for evolution and young earthers are free to deny the evidence against a global flood.

It is perfectly acceptable, as far as I am concerned, to deny that scholarly consensus ON THIS ISSUE is accurate, just as I deny that scholarly consensus concerning theism in philosophy departments, for example, is accurate. Scholarly consensus on open questions where the scholars themselves admit some level of uncertainty does not constitute a final say, especially where there may be good reasons from other disciplines to question the consensus of the current crop of scholars in this field. It may be that a minority of scholars has found good reasons to challenge the “consensus view.” It happens - in fact, often has throughout the history of science.

Speaking of “grasping at straws,” what’s with the resort to “lumping together” biblical archeology with young earth creationism or issues about evolution? I assumed that kind of move would be beneath your standards.

 

[Jerbear]

Exactly. You can’t have proof that something did not exist. That is what makes atheism so empty of logic.

wait wait wait… does that mean that you believe in absolutely every single thing imaginable because you can’t prove they don’t exist? If this thread was “Is it rational to believe garden fairies exist?” by your logic I would be illogical to not believe in them because I don’t have any proof that they don’t exist. I cannot prove that a God does not exist but if you could provide proof for his existence, rather than calling me illogical for not believing, I would gladly listen to what you have to say.

 

[Aloysium]

wait wait wait… does that mean that you believe in absolutely every single thing imaginable because you can’t prove they don’t exist? . . .

No, but rather that faith is based on what we know to be reality. An atheist may believe there is no God holding that he can trust only his senses as they are refined through science, thinking that God is a thing like a tea pot. Considerations about beauty, goodness, truth and being itself invariably lead one to contemplate the Divine.

 

[tonyrey]

Or would you say it is more rational to believe God doesn’t exist based on lack of sufficient evidence?

There is no evidence for the non-existence of God!

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.

Correct!

God, being supernatural by nature, could never be proven by empirical means.

It depends on how “empirical” is defined. Does it include our thoughts and decisions?

However, I still believe that one could possibly come to the conclusion that God exists using reason.

The existence of reason itself is evidence for the existence of God.

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.

Non-belief in God is unreasonable unless it explains how reason originated.

 

[glendab]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

… the scholarly consensus is that the story isn’t accurate…“The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,” and “a century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness.”

I’m wondering if you’d ever consider taking this last bit to a Rabbi or a Jewish Apologetic site to see how they feel about you simply agreeing with secular atheism’s conclusions and dismissing their history as not proven by modern scientists in a small place and time in history. You also aren’t providing any link to this bit of “scholarship,” which is only fair for debate settings, don’t you think? Come on, cough it up. Find the link and the tell us who said it so we sit on common ground.

Glenda

 

[Charlemagne_III]

wait wait wait… does that mean that you believe in absolutely every single thing imaginable because you can’t prove they don’t exist? If this thread was “Is it rational to believe garden fairies exist?” by your logic I would be illogical to not believe in them because I don’t have any proof that they don’t exist. I cannot prove that a God does not exist but if you could provide proof for his existence, rather than calling me illogical for not believing, I would gladly listen to what you have to say.

Too late to ask Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein why they refused to call themselves atheists. To take the position of atheist is to assert that you know for a fact there is no God, or to assert that you know for a fact the evidence for God is unconvincing. Well, at least the evidence is argued to be rational by any number of theologians, philosophers, and scientists who have examined it. That, of course, includes Einstein himself.

But then you ask the atheist to point out evidence as to why God does not exist. He is stumped. There is no such evidence. The same evidence he demands from the theist he does not demand from himself. That is what is mean by saying it is not rational to believe something for which you cannot provide any proof. Garden fairies could exist, but I don’t happen to know anyone who has offered proof that they do.

 

[Jerbear]

Too late to ask Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein why they refused to call themselves atheists. To take the position of atheist is to assert that you know for a fact there is no God, or to assert that you know for a fact the evidence for God is unconvincing. Well, at least the evidence is argued to be rational by any number of theologians, philosophers, and scientists who have examined it. That, of course, includes Einstein himself.

Atheists do not assert anything other than the fact that they do not believe in God. Theism and atheism is simply a belief and does not address anything to do with knowledge. The atheists who do assert that there is no God are the really extreme ones, not typical atheists.

But then you ask the atheist to point out evidence as to why God does not exist. He is stumped. There is no such evidence. The same evidence he demands from the theist he does not demand from himself. That is what is mean by saying it is not rational to believe something for which you cannot provide any proof. Garden fairies could exist, but I don’t happen to know anyone who has offered proof that they do.

The difference is that it is not possible to provide evidence that something does not exist, but it is possible to provide evidence that it does exist. The only evidence I have been offered was to look at the beauty of nature, that love and compassion are evidence for God’s existence. Could someone who believes in garden fairies provide evidence that you totally dismiss just as an atheist will dismiss love and compassion as being evidence for God? God could exist, but I don’t happen to know anyone who has offered proof that he exists either.

Can you please explain to me why this back and forth between us has gotten like this? I said I personally don’t believe in God but I can easily see why people do and then left it at that, trying to be civil to the people on this forum. Why did you feel the need to step in and tell me I’m illogical and start this huge thing between us on this forum?

 

[Darryl1958]

Goal related belief and behavior in fact defines rationality.

God is our alpha and omega. God defines where we come from and where we are going to.

To know God is to know our destiny. To understand God is to understand the reasons for our existence and what our purpose for being is.

It is very rational indeed then to define our reasons for being here in relationship to Being which is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. That is who we strive to become, atoned to, and at-one with, a Being, a reality defined as such.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheists do not assert anything other than the fact that they do not believe in God. Theism and atheism is simply a belief and does not address anything to do with knowledge. The atheists who do assert that there is no God are the really extreme ones, not typical atheists.

My Random House dictionary does not agree with your definition of atheism. The first definition given is, “The doctrine or belief that there is no God.”

In any case, could you explain to me the difference between “Atheists do not assert anything other than the fact that they do not believe in God” and “The atheists who do assert that there is no God are the really extreme ones” ? That might help to move this discussion along.

When you say “Atheists do not assert anything other than the fact that they do not believe in God” aren’t you asserting “that there is no God”?

Just as anyone “who asserts that they believe in God” is “asserting that there is a God”?

 

[Tomdstone]

Too late to ask Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein why they refused to call themselves atheists. To take the position of atheist is to assert that you know for a fact there is no God, or to assert that you know for a fact the evidence for God is unconvincing. Well, at least the evidence is argued to be rational by any number of theologians, philosophers, and scientists who have examined it. That, of course, includes Einstein himself.

But then you ask the atheist to point out evidence as to why God does not exist. He is stumped. There is no such evidence. The same evidence he demands from the theist he does not demand from himself. That is what is mean by saying it is not rational to believe something for which you cannot provide any proof. Garden fairies could exist, but I don’t happen to know anyone who has offered proof that they do.

Atheists often point to the existence of evil and suffering in the world as evidence for their belief.

 

[glendab]

Hello Tomstone.

Atheists often point to the existence of evil and suffering in the world as evidence for their belief.

Huh? I always thought that Atheists pointed to the existence of evil and suffering in the world as proof the Christianity had failed! Silly me.:doh2: Thanks for straightening that out for me.

Glenda

 

[Tomdstone]

Hello Tomstone.

Huh? I always thought that Atheists pointed to the existence of evil and suffering in the world as proof the Christianity had failed! Silly me.:doh2: Thanks for straightening that out for me.

Glenda

No problem.
See: The Evidential Argument from Evil (1998)
Nicholas Tattersall
infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html
or see:
“The most weighty of the arguments against God’s existence is the problem of evil. Of all the atheistic arguments, this is the one that has been around for longest, that has had the most words written about it…”
existence-of-god.com/problem-of-evil.html
This second reference is skeptical of the argument from evil, and gives reasons to reject it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheists often point to the existence of evil and suffering in the world as evidence for their belief.

That hardly qualifies as evidence, does it? It certainly wouldn’t convince me that God does not exist.

At most that observation would raise the question of what kind of God this God really is?

That is, does God bring both good and evil into the world?

But it certainly doesn’t prove there is no God.

 

[Tomdstone]

That hardly qualifies as evidence, does it?

There are reasons for rejecting the argument for atheism based on the existence of evil and suffering. However, I am not sure that it convinces those who are advocating this POV.
Please see links referred to above:
existence-of-god.com/problem-of-evil.html

infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

I’m wondering if you’d ever consider taking this last bit to a Rabbi or a Jewish Apologetic site to see how they feel about you simply agreeing with secular atheism’s conclusions and dismissing their history as not proven by modern scientists in a small place and time in history. You also aren’t providing any link to this bit of “scholarship,” which is only fair for debate settings, don’t you think? Come on, cough it up. Find the link and the tell us who said it so we sit on common ground.

Glenda

Here is a nice collection The book they are contained in does not strike me as particularly scholarly, but all the relevant quotes are sourced so you can look them up at your leisure.

 

[glendab]

Hello Japanesekappa.

Here is a nice collection The book they are contained in does not strike me as particularly scholarly, but all the relevant quotes are sourced so you can look them up at your leisure.

You’re right, the "scholarship’ is poor. I’d say just from peeking her bibliography says it if you ask me - a collection of dubious sources for a collection of dubious scholarship none of it to be taken seriously or considered worthy of carrying much weight with other scholars. It seems she spent much time collecting the doubts and proofs of doubts of others and found enough of them to knit together one more book of doubts. But a doubt isn’t proof of anything other than doubt. You can draw some conclusions though and that is that that particular author sought an answer for her doubt by proving there are several reasons for either denying God altogether held by others or lumping Judeo-Christian culture into the same heap of myths and legends she searches for her other proofs of doubts. So, two conclusions: the God of the Jews and the Christians either didn’t exist at all or their shared roots and beliefs belong to the same classification as all other myths and legends. Having had several Jews in my family I can tell you her tone is insulting and would put a Jew off greatly. Some of them are easily insulted when Gentiles try to tell them what they supposedly believe. Almost the same effect can be seen when Protestants try their hand at telling Catholics what they believe and visa versa. It happens. Well, thanks for the source and for sharing. Keep it up.

Glenda

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re right, the "scholarship’ is poor.

For one thing, she tends to present the “facts” in as biased a way as possible against the event. One contention is that the initial population of Israelites could not possibly have grown to the numbers claimed in Exodus in just “four generations.”

The sojourn is described as lasting 430 years in Exodus 12. Taking the number of Jacob’s descendants in Egypt at the beginning of the sojourn at 70 persons (Ex 1:1) and a human population growth rate of 2.6% (certainly not outside the bounds of possibility) we get a total population of 4,349,738 in 430 years, a far cry from the 7000 males claimed by Wheless (cited by the author) based on a literal reading of four generations and ignoring the number of years given in Ex 12.

Population calculator here:

metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php