Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[tonyrey]

And while it is not entirely negative I was simply commenting that, to me, the idea of Pascal’s Wager while interesting philosophically in terms of actual belief it doesn’t do much or for example telling a non-believer “what if you’re wrong” which is what I was commenting on.

At the very least it tells the non-believer that negativity is the worst possible policy. To expect nothing is an excellent recipe for suicide - which is only too frequently the result of “the death ends it all” mentality.

And I would also like to add Non Believers do have a positive attitude about existence as well as moral responsibility and justice, we just don’t think this involves an afterlife.

The issue is whether it is **rational **to have a positive attitude when you believe existence is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. It amounts to trying to have it both ways rather than accepting the logical consequences of a Godless universe. Camus and Sartre recognised the absurdity of life in such a scheme of things instead of indulging in wishful thinking.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

At the very least it tells the non-believer that negativity is the worst possible policy. To expect nothing is an excellent recipe for suicide - which is only too frequently the result of “the death ends it all” mentality.
The issue is whether it is **rational **to have a positive attitude when you believe existence is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. It amounts to trying to have it both ways rather than accepting the logical consequences of a Godless universe. Camus and Sartre recognised the absurdity of life in such a scheme of things instead of indulging in wishful thinking.

Well for one it is rational to be postive about life in a godless universe because life is not eternal so you should be happy that you get any life and very happy if it is good. Just because life doesn’t last forever doesn’t mean it can’t be good. Ricky Gervais said it perfectly when he said “I have nothing to die for and everything to live for” and I don’t believe existence is valueless and purposeless and meaningless, I just don’t think the purpose value and meaning comes from the guy with all the power. It comes from within. And believing there is no after life can also be a great detractor of the suicide mentality because if you don’t believe in an afterlife when you die you stop existing as opposed to going to paradise to meet the being you literally worship.

 

[Bradski]

The issue is whether it is **rational **to have a positive attitude when you believe existence is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. It amounts to trying to have it both ways rather than accepting the logical consequences of a Godless universe. Camus and Sartre recognised the absurdity of life in such a scheme of things instead of indulging in wishful thinking.

I guess if you constantly keep saying that life has no meaning for atheists, despite every single one pointing out at every available opportunity that for them the opposite is true, it makes it true for you.

But it does become exceptionally tiresome to be be constantly told that I don’t really believe what I say. Because this is the crux of any discussion with Tony:

Tony: Does life have any meaning for you?
Bradski: Yes, it certainly does. No question about it.
Tony: No it doesn’t.

Chutzpah of the highest order. Give it a rest, for heaven’s sake.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

For the record on this I was speaking in colloquial terms. I didn’t mean literally “evolved” I am familiar(as much as an 18 year old COM major can be) with the theory of abiogenesis. I was simply speaking in general terms

 

[tonyrey]

If the discussion is regarding certain aspects of evolution, then any problems perceived in coming to a theory of abiogenesis are irrelevant. That’s because abiogenesis is implicit in evolution. You cannot have evolution unless life actually starts - whether it started by natural or supernatural means.

So it is redundant to say that ‘life started and evolved’. It is simply sufficient to say that life has evolved on this planet. That it started is, obviously, a given.

The question remains as to how and why it started. To ignore the “why” is to assume that everything is ultimately purposeless - for which, of course, there is no evidence.

And expressing surprise that the earth is exactly the right distance from the sun from us (not you, RG) is like being surprised that you have exactly the right amount of skin to perfectly cover your whole body. Not too much…and not too little.

The existence of skin presupposes the existence of a purposeful organism. The existence of life does not presuppose the existence of fortuitous circumstances.

Must have been designed that way, surely. Couldn’t have happened by chance…

It is not a question of physical necessity but logical certainty. To derive the power of thought from thoughtless objects is self-destructive. A permutation of molecules produced by the blind Goddess is necessarily valueless, purposeless and meaningless whereas thought is necessarily valuable, purposeful and meaningful.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The question remains as to how and why it started. To ignore the “why” is to assume that everything is ultimately purposeless - for which, of course, there is no evidence.

Abiogenesis had a purpose: to start the process of evolution. Built into the first living organism was a directed order to adapt to changes in the environment. Then, of course, the environment was directed to change, and to change specifically in various directions that would usher in higher and more organized forms of life. Interestingly, the final change in the environment (say a million years ago) made possible the formation of the human brain, a computer that seemed programmed to become exponentially more complex and sophisticated until Voila! Man arrives on the scene.

The idea that all these changes in the environment and all these successful adaptations to these changes were purposelessly driven begs proving. It seems for all the world like Somebody has arranged from the start for life to exist in the universe, and that we are at least one manifestation of that plan.

When the computer at which I am typing was invented, that was a purposeful invention. The genius behind the computer was not acting without a purpose. How much less logical is it to believe that the Genius behind the universe did not even exist. That the universe invented itself. Would anyone ever believe that a computer could invent itself, could direct itself to evolve without some genius planting that order into the computer?

 

[RGCheek]

If the discussion is regarding certain aspects of evolution, then any problems perceived in coming to a theory of abiogenesis are irrelevant. That’s because abiogenesis is implicit in evolution.

Show me where in the theory of Evolution abiogenesis is implied.

You cant because that is not how science works. Evolution is evolution of life and what might have caused life to start is not part of its evolution.

For all we know intelligence from another dimension could have engineered life in this universe. You do not KNOW otherwise and NOTHING is implied in terms of science…

You cannot have evolution unless life actually starts - whether it started by natural or supernatural means.

So it is redundant to say that ‘life started and evolved’. It is simply sufficient to say that life has evolved on this planet. That it started is, obviously, a given.

We do not KNOW that life started on this planet. It could have been seeded here from previous life on other planets.

And expressing surprise that the earth is exactly the right distance from the sun from us (not you, RG) is like being surprised that you have exactly the right amount of skin to perfectly cover your whole body. Not too much…and not too little.

Must have been designed that way, surely. Couldn’t have happened by chance…

Interesting that we also have the North Star which helped mankind navigate the Earth on its ‘top’ side which has most of its population and allowed transcontinental navigational travel. The Gospel has spread to cover the entire globe and so many bearers of this Good News found the use of the Pole Star critical to their success. And the period of time when our Earth’s axes line up exactly with the Pole Star is only a short time, but it has coincided with that of an evolving human civilization.

We have the moon which is unique in its ratio of size to its host planet and has shielded our planet for millions of years.

We have that same moon with characteristics that have been identified with the female human being for thousands of year, the two having cycles of almost exactly the same duration. Thus the moon has long been an ennobling body of the heavens, suggesting that women are more than just the property of dominant men.

We have the Holy Land established in the most central location of the inhabited Old World. We have the miraculous survival of Israel when attacked by the Assyrians, and its monotheism surviving to now be more than half the present worlds population.

Yeah, it’s all like skin, dude.

)

 

[inocente]

However you want to visualize the Ascension, that is your interpretation. The Bible does not give a location for heaven. If you seriously believe it does, please do tell us where.

Putting your prooftext aside, it’s not surprising that the authors of Holy Scripture used finite concepts, is it? Or are you suggesting that Heaven is located in the atmosphere directly over Jerusalem?

Traditionally, heaven is the dwelling place of God beyond the stars (c.f. “Be embraced, millions! / This kiss to the entire world! / Brothers - above the starry canopy / A loving father must dwell.” – Schiller, Ode to Joy).

The Lord tells Abram to “Look towards heaven and count the stars”. Angels ascend and descend on Jacob’s ladder. The fire of God falls from heaven in Job. Elijah is taken up to heaven, which the Lord accomplishes by means of a whirlwind. You can find lots of references to heaven’s location in the bible.

The location was formalized by Aristotle in the celestial spheres. We still talk of the sky as the heavens, and we still lift our hands up to God, although we now know that Aristotle’s cosmology was wrong.

You may believe that heaven is some kind of plane or state, but that doesn’t give you license to impose your belief on the bible writers. We need to read what is actually written to stand any chance of revelation, rather than dismiss everything we find inconvenient as figurative or allegory.

 

[Tomdstone]

You may believe that heaven is some kind of plane or state, but that doesn’t give you license to impose your belief on the bible writers. We need to read what is actually written to stand any chance of revelation, rather than dismiss everything we find inconvenient as figurative or allegory.

Correct. This is what I was trying to say in answer to some of the amateur philosophers here. It is not right to take the Nicene Creed metaphorically, because philosophy demands that we do so. This just plays into the hands of the atheists who see many religious truths as metaphors.

 

[inocente]

Show me where in the theory of Evolution abiogenesis is implied.

Leaving aside that some posts on this thread are comprehensively wrong about evolution, you may not realize that there is a temporary ban on discussion of evolution - see the stickies.

 

[RGCheek]

For the record on this I was speaking in colloquial terms. I didn’t mean literally “evolved” I am familiar(as much as an 18 year old COM major can be) with the theory of abiogenesis. I was simply speaking in general terms

Well, my Aspergers says that that is still breaking the Unwritten Rules of Obsessive Detail.

Lol, I seriously do not grasp certain neuro-typical behaviors and this is one such case.

But still, many people do think evolution covers abiogenesis, so I wasn’t being too presumptuous.

 

[RGCheek]

Leaving aside that some posts on this thread are comprehensively wrong about evolution, you may not realize that there is a temporary ban on discussion of evolution - see the stickies.

Wow, ok, will do.

Thank you.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Well, my Aspergers says that that is still breaking the Unwritten Rules of Obsessive Detail.

Lol, I seriously do not grasp certain neuro-typical behaviors and this is one such case.

But still, many people do think evolution covers abiogenesis, so I wasn’t being too presumptuous.

Well not entirely but I wasn’t in an indepth discussion on evolution or abiogenesis I simply used a word because it sounded like it fit. If you would prefer I can monitor my every word from now one so as to not say something you might misinterpret

 

[Peter_Plato]

Correct. This is what I was trying to say in answer to some of the amateur philosophers here. It is not right to take the Nicene Creed metaphorically, because philosophy demands that we do so. This just plays into the hands of the atheists who see many religious truths as metaphors.

Yes of course, because insisting everything should be taken literally does NOT “play into the hands of atheists” who use the stories of Genesis as a cudgel to beat up on religious beliefs. Clearly, atheists are atheists because they have no sense of discerning when stories should be taken as written and when not.

There is a fine line to be walked between the atheist and the fundamentalist
and that fine line is where the truth is to be found.

Then the disciples came and asked him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” He answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’ With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says:

‘You will indeed listen, but never understand,
and you will indeed look, but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes;
so that they might not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and understand with their heart and turn—
and I would heal them.’
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it. (Matt 13:10-16)

Apparently, the Kingdom of Heaven really is a mustard seed, the end of the world really is a wedding feast, Jesus really is a word, and weeds really are evil. Either that, or God really does use parables and metaphors (figures of speech) to express truths that cannot be fully understood by words used literally.

Your argument applies both to the use of metaphors and to literal reading of Scripture - both play into the hands of atheists but that just seems to be a problem with atheists.

 

[stewstew03]

Traditionally, heaven is the dwelling place of God beyond the stars (c.f. “Be embraced, millions! / This kiss to the entire world! / Brothers - above the starry canopy / A loving father must dwell.” – Schiller, Ode to Joy).

The Lord tells Abram to “Look towards heaven and count the stars”. Angels ascend and descend on Jacob’s ladder. The fire of God falls from heaven in Job. Elijah is taken up to heaven, which the Lord accomplishes by means of a whirlwind. You can find lots of references to heaven’s location in the bible.

The location was formalized by Aristotle in the celestial spheres. We still talk of the sky as the heavens, and we still lift our hands up to God, although we now know that Aristotle’s cosmology was wrong.

You may believe that heaven is some kind of plane or state, but that doesn’t give you license to impose your belief on the bible writers. We need to read what is actually written to stand any chance of revelation, rather than dismiss everything we find inconvenient as figurative or allegory.

Just to be clear – your belief is that Heaven is a physical location to which we can travel?

 

[stewstew03]

Correct. This is what I was trying to say in answer to some of the amateur philosophers here. It is not right to take the Nicene Creed metaphorically, because philosophy demands that we do so. This just plays into the hands of the atheists who see many religious truths as metaphors.

“Amateur philosophers”… If you are a “professional” philosopher then perhaps you can direct us to your published works so that we can become more learned…?

 

[inocente]

inocente;12340146:

Traditionally, heaven is the dwelling place of God beyond the stars (c.f. “Be embraced, millions! / This kiss to the entire world! / Brothers - above the starry canopy / A loving father must dwell.” – Schiller, Ode to Joy).

The Lord tells Abram to “Look towards heaven and count the stars”. Angels ascend and descend on Jacob’s ladder. The fire of God falls from heaven in Job. Elijah is taken up to heaven, which the Lord accomplishes by means of a whirlwind. You can find lots of references to heaven’s location in the bible.

The location was formalized by Aristotle in the celestial spheres. We still talk of the sky as the heavens, and we still lift our hands up to God, although we now know that Aristotle’s cosmology was wrong.

You may believe that heaven is some kind of plane or state, but that doesn’t give you license to impose your belief on the bible writers. We need to read what is actually written to stand any chance of revelation, rather than dismiss everything we find inconvenient as figurative or allegory.

Just to be clear – your belief is that Heaven is a physical location to which we can travel?

Nice try but just to be clear, we’re discussing scripture, and I think I’ve given enough examples to show that for the bible writers, heaven is a location to which Elijah and Jesus traveled. (Actually scripture talks of three heavens, the first is the atmosphere, the second is where the stars are, and beyond them the third (2 Cor 12) is where God dwells).

Arguments can be made that heaven is a state or a metaphor or immaterial or whatever you like, but that’s not how scripture sees it.

As for contemporary personal beliefs, if you ask around I’m pretty sure you’ll find that most people still think of loved ones who have passed on as looking down on them from heaven. We still raise our hands to heaven, we still talk of going to heaven, we still think of having a new body in heaven (and after the resurrection Jesus’ body is definitely physical - John 20:27).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well not entirely but I wasn’t in an indepth discussion on evolution or abiogenesis I simply used a word because it sounded like it fit. If you would prefer I can monitor my every word from now one so as to not say something you might misinterpret

Since you are a Helpful Atheist, I will ask you to help me understand why you are an atheist.

Is it because you have not seen God up close and personal?

Is it because you have not experienced God in any other personal way (prayer, for example)?

Is it because you require more proof than theists seem able to provide?

Is it because you see no proof whatever of God?

Or is it for some other reason you care to share?

 

[Aloysium]

Since you are a Helpful Atheist, I will ask you to help me understand why you are an atheist. . .

Calling oneself an Atheist says nothing about one’s understanding of existence.
In addition to the questions above, Helpful A., I would be interested in your views re:

• What constitutes goodness? Many people say, “I am a good person.” What defines or what makes one a “good person”.
• What is beauty? Is it something intrinsic to what we call beautiful or a quality we impose on a neautral object? How does that work?
• What is truth? That was Pilate’s question. Science and the courts are interested in the facts, i.e. what can be demonstrated; is this all that truth is about? Is truth democratic? I assume you are aware that you exist; how is it that you know this? Is it the senses that detect your being? Is it your intellect? If you stop thinking do you cease to be?
• So, what is existence? Who are you? How is it that you exist? Is it possible that there is something that would be completely other that causes you to be in existence?
• Stuff like that, science has no answer because it is not its domain. Where do you look for answers?

 

[JWH123]

Well let me ask you a question, is it at all surprising that life would evolve on a planet with the proper conditions to support life? or in other words you say that if the earth were any closer or further from the sun we couldn’t live on it but why would it have to be earth? Who is to say that life wouldn’t form on some other planet? And more importantly is that earth has not, and will not always be able to sustain life. So while you say that some things are so complex that it appears that the universe was built for us I would like you to think of this anecdotewhich for the record I did not come up with although I forget the name of the person who did)

A flower growing out a crack in the concrete may look and notice that it seems highly unlikely that it could grow there yet it did. Had the crack formed two inches further away then it would not have been over a dirt patch and any smaller and the flower could not grow yet the crack was not design it was coincidence and if no flower had grown no one would notice and I believe the same could be said of humans, had the sun been closer or further we would not be here(Which would be sad) but nothing would be different.

We pay attention to these facts because they are significant to us. In a deck of 52 cards picking any 13 cards at random and they all being spades is the same chance as the cards being any random combination of 13 cards.

I understand what you are saying, but let me explain that what I said was meant to bring up the larger point in this whole topic.

For years, believers have tried to “prove” the existence of God by talking about the complex makeup of the universe and saying that a supreme creator who is all-powerful and all-knowing had to design it. When you look at everything in the universe being the way it is, the idea that it could have happened by random chance or dumb luck is something with the chances of 1 in the number 1 followed by a thousand zeros. What I’m saying is that to say that there is an all-knowing and all-powerful supreme being which created the entire universe with a grand design is not a huge leap of faith, because it truly makes more scientific sense than saying things just materialized in this order.

Now I’m going to tell you something which is virtually impossible to prove through science, but is believed by all people of faith.

We Christians believe that the same supreme being (God) who created everything is also a merciful and all-loving Father figure who regards all of us as His children, and wants us to spend eternity in Heaven with Him. THAT is a large leap of faith, because even if you believe in a supreme creator,** there is nothing tangible to prove what I just underlined.** Further, we Christians, in order to be able to spend eternity with God in Heaven, subscribe to a lifestyle which is not going with the flow of humanity. We give to the poor. We love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. We maintain that the single should be chaste and the married be faithful to spouse. We believe that all killing and stealing is wrong. And while we aren’t perfect, we believe that God came to earth, took the form of a human, and died in order to save us.