Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Frankenfurter]

For one who has never experienced God, it is irrational to believe in him.

For one who has experienced God, it is irrational NOT to be believe in him.

As Einstein says: ‘All knowledge is experience. Everything else is just information’.

Since so many people have experienced God, it is irrational not to seek him out.

 

[glendab]

Hello Frankenfurter.

For one who has never experienced God, it is irrational to believe in him.

For one who has experienced God, it is irrational NOT to be believe in him.

As Einstein says: ‘All knowledge is experience. Everything else is just information’.

Since so many people have experienced God, it is irrational not to seek him out.

Very good you hotdog!

Glenda

 

[Bahman]

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

In simple word, we cannot even rationally prove that we have free will since the rationality requires definability which free will does not forfeit. To me the experience of free will is completely irrational phenomena. This means that creation of a being with free will cannot be understood in rational way since free will cannot be understood in rational way. Hence there does not exist a rational proof for God.

 

[Skeptic92]

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

Yes, there are at least 6 perfectly valid and sound arguments for the Existence of God. The Quinquae Viae and the Existential Argument from De Ente et Essentia.

One version of Avicennas Argument to a Necessary Existent that I am a fan of (also informed by Fr Spitzer) can be found here; ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

 

[Skeptic92]

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.

That’s not Aquinas’ 4th Way. The 4th way is based on the Transcendental properties of Being (so perfect being, unity, truth, & goodness) and not on God being an “engineer”. Aquinas’ fifth way is based upon Final Causation, not Paley style design.

 

[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.

I think some of your statements are too sweeping. Like “science has no say”. I agree that many observations from science are not self evident. We need sophisticated instruments to be able to understand planetary motion. But we don’t need sophisticated instruments to understand Newton’s law that an object at rest stays at rest unless a force moves it. All we have to do is look at the book resting on the table for a few hours. BTW, I realize it’s not really at rest…

 

[Skeptic92]

I think some of your statements are too sweeping. Like “science has no say”. I agree that many observations from science are not self evident. We need sophisticated instruments to be able to understand planetary motion. But we don’t need sophisticated instruments to understand Newton’s law that an object at rest stays at rest unless a force moves it. All we have to do is look at the book resting on the table for a few hours. BTW, I realize it’s not really at rest…

I think I might be able to wade in here, because I agree that the Natural Sciences on this topic have no say- they are irrelevant. A discipline must keep to its proper object of enquiry; for the Natural Sciences this is the natural order of being as in motion, making it improper to questions of Ontology and Metaphysics. The question of Gods existence falls under the discipline of Metaphysics/Ontology and most specifically Natural Theology, which has as its object “being qua being” and things of God that can be discovered by the natural light of human reason.

If you need to appeal to empirical arguments to prove God; your argument already fails as an invalid inference.

 

[miguel]

That’s not Aquinas’ 4th Way. The 4th way is based on the Transcendental properties of Being (so perfect being, unity, truth, & goodness) and not on God being an “engineer”. Aquinas’ fifth way is based upon Final Causation, not Paley style design.

Yes it is. You mention goodness. He looked at his creation and called it good. There must be something about the ability to create that fits into God’s idea of goodness. We are made in his image and likeness. Engineering is a creative process. We don’t have the ability to create something out of nothing. But if engineering is a good quality (in my life I’ve heard people compare engineers…one person is a good engineer, another person is a great engineer, etc.), I possess that in a much less perfect way than the standard of perfection…the way God possesses that quality.

 

[miguel]

I think I might be able to wade in here, because I agree that the Natural Sciences on this topic have no say- they are irrelevant. A discipline must keep to its proper object of enquiry; for the Natural Sciences this is the natural order of being as in motion, making it improper to questions of Ontology and Metaphysics. The question of Gods existence falls under the discipline of Metaphysics/Ontology and most specifically Natural Theology, which has as its object “being qua being” and things of God that can be discovered by the natural light of human reason.

If you need to appeal to empirical arguments to prove God; your argument already fails as an invalid inference.

So disciplines like Metaphysics/Ontology and Natural Theology should keep their blinders to observations from the Natural Sciences? Why? I realize the need to categorize human knowledge during the process of studying it. But occasionally, even during the process of study, insights from other categories can shed light on the topic at hand. For example, when I was studying engineering, the best text books and or instructors included the historical development of the particular areas we were studying, not just the equations. God Bless.

 

[Auntie_A]

Could we ask an opposing question?

Is it irrational to believe that God exists?

 

[miguel]

…Is it irrational to believe that God exists?

Negative.

 

[Thorns]

Perhaps it is because I am a struggling Catholic and very lukewarm at the moment, but in some situations I almost feel embarassed to have a conversation on resurrections, virgin births, angels, miracles, etc. I even find myself struggling to speak the words of the Apostle’s Creed at Mass due to embarassment, even though I am surrounded by believers. I feel like that is the mind’s natural indication stating “no, these things are not rational to believe in or speak about casually as if they are so obvious.” I’ve also had many reoccuring experiences of profound disappointment. Things that I have put my trust in, my effort, time, energy have turned out to not be what I thought after all, and it seems I was only chasing my own perception. Just an illusion.

I feel like there is obviously no evidence and the answer to quell any questions is “because a book that spoke of bizarre events in an ancient language says so.” It doesn’t sound rational at all to me.

 

[miguel]

Perhaps it is because I am a struggling Catholic and very lukewarm at the moment, but in some situations I almost feel embarassed to have a conversation on resurrections, virgin births, angels, miracles, etc. I even find myself struggling to speak the words of the Apostle’s Creed at Mass due to embarassment, even though I am surrounded by believers. I feel like that is the mind’s natural indication stating “no, these things are not rational to believe in or speak about casually as if they are so obvious.” I’ve also had many reoccuring experiences of profound disappointment. Things that I have put my trust in, my effort, time, energy have turned out to not be what I thought after all, and it seems I was only chasing my own perception. Just an illusion.

I feel like there is obviously no evidence and the answer to quell any questions is “because a book that spoke of bizarre events in an ancient language says so.” It doesn’t sound rational at all to me.

I feel the same way when it comes to discussing some of these things we believe with non-believers, I usually avoid doing that because I don’t like ridicule. Jesus also told us not to throw pearls before swine. Sounds kind of harsh. But then again I don’t mind discussing these things with believers. This particular point…that God exists…is a proven fact of human knowledge. St Thomas Aquinas gave 5
proofs for the existence of God,800 years ago…these modern atheists are just blowing smoke. They have nothing. You can be confident in the fact that God exists. We know that fact from divine revelation (God told us) and unaided human reason ( pure philosophical deduction). That is the position of the Catholic Church. God Bless.

 

[Auntie_A]

Perhaps it is because I am a struggling Catholic and very lukewarm at the moment, but in some situations I almost feel embarassed to have a conversation on resurrections, virgin births, angels, miracles, etc. I even find myself struggling to speak the words of the Apostle’s Creed at Mass due to embarassment, even though I am surrounded by believers. I feel like that is the mind’s natural indication stating “no, these things are not rational to believe in or speak about casually as if they are so obvious.” I’ve also had many reoccuring experiences of profound disappointment. Things that I have put my trust in, my effort, time, energy have turned out to not be what I thought after all, and it seems I was only chasing my own perception. Just an illusion.

I feel like there is obviously no evidence and the answer to quell any questions is “because a book that spoke of bizarre events in an ancient language says so.” It doesn’t sound rational at all to me.

But it seems irrational to get so embarrassed about our faith yet not flinch at “contemporary knowledge” that has not stood the test of time.

And the " bizarre events", some of which are still acknowledged as historical, actually make sense since they connect us to the supernatural. Yes, 20 other cults could try to mimic the “bizarre events” but many things of true value have been counterfeited. The genuine details of Christ’s birth, although many have taken a “rational” or cynical approach, actually begin to resound with truth when you compare them against the great lies of the world.

 

[glendab]

Hello Thorns.

Perhaps it is because I am a struggling Catholic and very lukewarm at the moment, but in some situations I almost feel embarassed to have a conversation on resurrections, virgin births, angels, miracles, etc. I even find myself struggling to speak the words of the Apostle’s Creed at Mass due to embarassment, even though I am surrounded by believers. I feel like that is the mind’s natural indication stating “no, these things are not rational to believe in or speak about casually as if they are so obvious.” I’ve also had many reoccuring experiences of profound disappointment. Things that I have put my trust in, my effort, time, energy have turned out to not be what I thought after all, and it seems I was only chasing my own perception. Just an illusion.

I feel like there is obviously no evidence and the answer to quell any questions is “because a book that spoke of bizarre events in an ancient language says so.” It doesn’t sound rational at all to me.

Thank you for your candor and honesty. This is the bottom line and will aid you in healing from your lukewarm status. Most don’t acknowledge it at all and if the wounds of sin aren’t exposed to God’s healing grace, He cannot heal them. I will keep you in my Rosary for a while. Please take all that you’ve just written here in this thread to a Priest you trust.

Glenda

 

[abucs]

Is it irrational to believe that God exists?

The answer to the question is no., it is not irrational. In fact it is rational, as opposed to the alternative.

As a computer programmer I ask if in the future it will be possible to create a virtual world with life?

The virtual world is just about possible now after only about 50 years of computer programming.

If life is simply a set of wiring in the brain to create consciousness then at some point in the future we should be able to do this (in another 50 years, 500 years 5 million years?) in a computer setting.

So then, if it is rational to believe we can create life forms in a sustaining world in the future, then it follows it is rational to believe this may have already been done for us.

In fact, because we have no likely example or models of complex worlds causing life being created without the use of intelligence, it is more rational to go with the created scenario.

Some atheists like to define a position with no evidence as a faith position. Given this definition, the belief that our universe began without the aid of intelligence is a faith position much more than the position that it began with the aid of intelligence,

 

[Skeptic92]

So disciplines like Metaphysics/Ontology and Natural Theology should keep their blinders to observations from the Natural Sciences? Why? I realize the need to categorize human knowledge during the process of studying it. But occasionally, even during the process of study, insights from other categories can shed light on the topic at hand. For example, when I was studying engineering, the best text books and or instructors included the historical development of the particular areas we were studying, not just the equations. God Bless.

No, they just keep in mind which way the premises go. Ontology submits its theses on causality/substance/essence/etc to Natural Philosophy, and then they get used in the Natural Sciences. If the special sciences are used for an argument for the existence of God it is a category error and the argument fails.

The major change due to scientific advancements in Ontology has been due to the conception of time. It has been found that Time is a real dimension of our universe and therefore has an ontology of its own. I’ve avoided that debate for now though; for the sake of argument I prefer to presume an eternally existing universe.

 

[Thorns]

You can be confident in the fact that God exists. We know that fact from divine revelation (God told us) and unaided human reason ( pure philosophical deduction). That is the position of the Catholic Church. God Bless.

We can take a look at some of those African tribes which are completely isolated from world views, agendas, technology, science, religion, events happening in the world, and they do not come to the same conclusions that we come to.

 

[Thorns]

But it seems irrational to get so embarrassed about our faith yet not flinch at “contemporary knowledge” that has not stood the test of time.

And the " bizarre events", some of which are still acknowledged as historical, actually make sense since they connect us to the supernatural. Yes, 20 other cults could try to mimic the “bizarre events” but many things of true value have been counterfeited. The genuine details of Christ’s birth, although many have taken a “rational” or cynical approach, actually begin to resound with truth when you compare them against the great lies of the world.

Contemporary knowledge doesn’t claim to be the be all end all of information. It is humble in a sense, since it claims “Based on the data that we have at the current moment, this is what we think is plausible. For now” leaving the door open for future development.

How does Christ’s birth resound with truth when compared to the great lies of the world? To me, it is a huge mystery.

 

[miguel]

No, they just keep in mind which way the premises go. Ontology submits its theses on causality/substance/essence/etc to Natural Philosophy, and then they get used in the Natural Sciences. If the special sciences are used for an argument for the existence of God it is a category error and the argument fails.

The major change due to scientific advancements in Ontology has been due to the conception of time. It has been found that Time is a real dimension of our universe and therefore has an ontology of its own. I’ve avoided that debate for now though; for the sake of argument I prefer to presume an eternally existing universe.

And I’m saying truth can be a little more free-flowing. I don’t understand why any believer would want to constrain it. I understand why non-believers try to suppress discussion of it. BTW, an eternally existing universe ignores the big bang. An eternally existing universe is not reality. It also ignores divine revelation. God Bless.