Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[RGCheek]

See Isaiah 45:7 God is quoted as saying:"…I make peace and create evil."

Full context:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+45&version=RSVCE

Isaiah chapter 45
1 Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I have grasped,
to subdue nations before him
and ungird the loins of kings,
to open doors before him
that gates may not be closed:
2 “I will go before you
and level the mountains,[a]
I will break in pieces the doors of bronze
and cut asunder the bars of iron,
3 I will give you the treasures of darkness
and the hoards in secret places,
that you may know that it is I, the Lord,
the God of Israel, who call you by your name.
4 For the sake of my servant Jacob,
and Israel my chosen,
I call you by your name,
I surname you, though you do not know me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I gird you, though you do not know me,
6 that men may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe,
I am the Lord, who do all these things.

So the sense in which God ‘creates woe’ is the same sense in which He ‘creates darkness’. When we shine a light, shadows are created, and yet it is not a fault of our own that shadows form when we present light. When God creates good, their is ‘woe’ or ‘evil’ made in contrast only to the weal or the good.

Should God refrain from creating light/good so that no darkness/evil is formed from the absence of His Light/Goodness?

 

[RGCheek]

Only materialists believe all reality is scientifically explicable.

I am not so sure of that any more.

We live in a time when ‘God spoke and there was light’ has been scientifically proven to have occurred. It hasn’t been proven that God did it, but it has been proven that the entire universe sprang into being in one nanosecond.

So now this great miracle of the creation of the universe is moved from the miraculous to that of the providential, hasn’t it?

And if the act of Creation itself conforms to the regularity of God’s Law, who is to say that not all things we think miraculous are not also the province of some as yet unknown laws?

I am beginning to suspect that the most accurate definition of the miraculous is ‘an act of providence not yet understood by science.’

 

[Peter_Plato]

We seem to have lost each other. I’ll rewind.

In something such as physics, experiment is the final arbiter, and all physicists from all cultures can agree on that.

But that doesn’t apply, for example, to systems of ethics. There are many competing ideas, with no agreement on which if any is best. Not because philosophers of ethics are irrational or incompetent but because no one agrees on what the final arbiter should be, or even if there is one.

And that’s often the case with humans, we don’t all live in the same subjective or collective reality. What we think is reality varies hugely by period, by culture, by station, etc.

So to get back to the OP, a person or group can try to dictate to everyone else how we should conceive of heaven or of God, and what is and isn’t rational, and what is and isn’t the truth, but they can’t succeed because rational people do not agree with them by reason of period, culture, station, etc.

Your problem here is that you assume the truth is a subjective reality rather than subjectivity being an aspect of the human condition with regard to knowing and accepting truth. The subjective component is one that comes into play when any particular human tries to understand the truth, but that is quite a different matter from truth itself being subjective.

Rational people do not agree or disagree “by reason of period, culture, station, etc.” Rational people understand that basing an argument on period, culture, station, etc. is an irrational invocation of logical fallacies that are listed in any good primer on logic or philosophy.

And while some may not like the mess, it’s not a problem, it’s good, because if everyone thought the same then no one would question anything and nothing would ever change for the better.

This describes the current state of science, say in areas like quantum physics where there is clearly "a mess,’ which as you say, allows for noodling it out without until the best explanation is arrived at.

Again, I would argue that the same “mess” is a good with regard to ethics and religion precisely because the challenges from opposing points of view provide incentive to fully understand and explicate the principles and implications of the religious or ethical position.

To say any one position is incorrect merely because someone disagrees owing to their “period, culture, station, etc.” ought to be given short shrift as a “reason” that any ethical or religious view could be as true or good as any other.

This is what happens when you try to smuggle in a fallacy as legitimate reasoning.

You are simply wrong on this and it isn’t because I come from a different time, culture, or station, but because it is simply false to allow those as making any difference regarding reason and logic.

Time, culture, period, etc. might explain why someone disagrees, but these don’t logically justify the disagreement, unless, of course, you are apt to admit fallacies as sound logic.

Say it isn’t so.

 

[inocente]

Not always. Sometimes ideas are discarded by way of the majority. See, for example, the evolution of homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (which was largely driven by political and social pressure).

I don’t know the history but I think it was the right decision, however it was arrived at.

The DSM is produced by psychiatrists, and is medical rather than scientific. Medical ethics require that psychiatrists must not play God by taking a moral stance. If someone isn’t distressed by being gay then there’s no ethical reason to label it as a medical disorder or to intervene.

 

[RGCheek]

No doubt it would be a much tidier and simpler if Texas ruled the world.

I’ve been saying this for years…

Doesn’t everybody?

 

[Peter_Plato]

And just to point out to another poster that the good folk of Texas also have the sense to know that heaven is a place :

*Highway 90
The jobs are gone
We tend our garden
We set the sun
This is the only place on earth blue bonnets grow
Once a year they come and go
At this old house here by the road
And when we die we say we’ll catch some blackbird’s wing
Then we’ll fly away to heaven come some sweet blue bonnet spring

youtube.com/watch?v=WABdrZCJ5Ys*

By your reading of these lyrics, “the good folk of Texas” must also think they can hijack a blackbird after dying to get there, that is, if heaven is that kind of “place.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t know the history but I think it was the right decision, however it was arrived at.

The DSM is produced by psychiatrists, and is medical rather than scientific. Medical ethics require that psychiatrists must not play God by taking a moral stance. If someone isn’t distressed by being gay then there’s no ethical reason to label it as a medical disorder or to intervene.

Is being amoral, “not taking a moral position?”

How is defining a moral position as not a moral position, NOT “taking a moral position?”

That would be like a police officer not arresting a gun runner because he refuses to take a moral stance on selling guns. That is a moral position in the same stroke as claiming not to be.

Saying it’s okay to smoke cigarettes or lend money is taking a moral position about both of these activities. It is saying, “My moral position is that these activities have no moral implications.”

Also, “If someone isn’t distressed by being gay then there’s no ethical reason to label it as a medical disorder or to intervene…” is problematic, principally because, universalized, it would mean that if someone isn’t distressed by torturing another person or animal there would be “no ethical reason” to label these as medical disorders or intervene.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Medical ethics require that psychiatrists must not play God by taking a moral stance.

There is something odd in claiming medical ethics should NOT take moral stances. No?

It is like saying a good governments should not govern.

You are just full of these quaint little logical absurdities

 

[inocente]

Your problem here is that you assume the truth is a subjective reality rather than subjectivity being an aspect of the human condition with regard to knowing and accepting truth. The subjective component is one that comes into play when any particular human tries to understand the truth, but that is quite a different matter from truth itself being subjective.

Rational people do not agree or disagree “by reason of period, culture, station, etc.” Rational people understand that basing an argument on period, culture, station, etc. is an irrational invocation of logical fallacies that are listed in any good primer on logic or philosophy.

That’s not what I’m saying. Assume that any rational person will bin all the invalid arguments as that’s the rational thing to do.

You’re still left with choices, and other rational people will not agree on your choice. For example, here’s just a tiny sample of the many systems of ethics: consequentialism, deontology, hedonism, natural law, pragmatism, stoicism. Please choose whichever one you prefer and then tell me why you alone know you are being rational and objective and how you know that all those who go for another choice are irrationally subjective.

*This describes the current state of science, say in areas like quantum physics where there is clearly "a mess,’ which as you say, allows for noodling it out without until the best explanation is arrived at.

Again, I would argue that the same “mess” is a good with regard to ethics and religion precisely because the challenges from opposing points of view provide incentive to fully understand and explicate the principles and implications of the religious or ethical position.

To say any one position is incorrect merely because someone disagrees owing to their “period, culture, station, etc.” ought to be given short shrift as a “reason” that any ethical or religious view could be as true or good as any other.

This is what happens when you try to smuggle in a fallacy as legitimate reasoning.

You are simply wrong on this and it isn’t because I come from a different time, culture, or station, but because it is simply false to allow those as making any difference regarding reason and logic.

Time, culture, period, etc. might explain why someone disagrees, but these don’t logically justify the disagreement, unless, of course, you are apt to admit fallacies as sound logic.

Say it isn’t so.*

I must be missing your point as you sound unnaturally naive. As above, you appear to be hoping that all worldviews except one must necessarily be irrational. But after you’ve weeded out all the irrational arguments, many always remain. A typical Texan and a typical Iranian almost certainly will not agree on everything. Who are you to judge which, if either, has the more rational grasp on reality, and what are your criteria?

 

[Peter_Plato]

A typical Texan and a typical Iranian almost certainly will not agree on everything. Who are you to judge which, if either, has the more rational grasp on reality, and what are your criteria?

Again, simply a malformed argument.

Merely because a typical Texan and typical Iranian disagree on some things does not imply they are both wrong about everything. Nor does it imply they can’t agree on crucially important things.

It isn’t a question of “who am I to judge” (an ad hominem) it is a question concerning the validity of each of their views on specific questions and how those views are validated.

Simply because I cannot spew forth my “criteria” on every possible issue that might be discordant between them succinctly in one post does not mean such issues cannot be resolved.

Your argument here, as far as I can tell, is “it’s too big an issue to resolve, therefore it can’t be.”

That would seem to describe your subjective attitude on the issue more so than it does the truth of the matter.

Basically, it is an appeal to laziness or the opposite of a slippery slope - appeal to an ostensibly unscalable height: it’s too high to scale, so be content living in the nether regions of ignorance.

 

[inocente]

Is being amoral, “not taking a moral position?”

How is defining a moral position as not a moral position, NOT “taking a moral position?”

That would be like a police officer not arresting a gun runner because he refuses to take a moral stance on selling guns. That is a moral position in the same stroke as claiming not to be.

Saying it’s okay to smoke cigarettes or lend money is taking a moral position about both of these activities. It is saying, “My moral position is that these activities have no moral implications.”

Also, “If someone isn’t distressed by being gay then there’s no ethical reason to label it as a medical disorder or to intervene…” is problematic, principally because, universalized, it would mean that if someone isn’t distressed by torturing another person or animal there would be “no ethical reason” to label these as medical disorders or intervene.

There is something odd in claiming medical ethics should NOT take moral stances. No?

It is like saying a good governments should not govern.

You are just full of these quaint little logical absurdities

This is very confused. You don’t appear to know the difference between professional codes of conduct and morals.

It would be highly unethical for a psychiatrist to treat morals she doesn’t like as if it were an illness.

Maybe you want psychiatrists to lock people in a mental institution and force drugs down their throats purely whose lifestyle you don’t like, but thankfully medical professionals have far higher standards.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not so sure of that any more.

We live in a time when ‘God spoke and there was light’ has been scientifically proven to have occurred. It hasn’t been proven that God did it, but it has been proven that the entire universe sprang into being in one nanosecond.

So now this great miracle of the creation of the universe is moved from the miraculous to that of the providential, hasn’t it?

The miraculous and the providential are not always mutually exclusive.

And if the act of Creation itself conforms to the regularity of God’s Law, who is to say that not all things we think miraculous are not also the province of some as yet unknown laws?

I am beginning to suspect that the most accurate definition of the miraculous is ‘an act of providence not yet understood by science.’

If that is the case a Christian needs to explain how the unknown laws are related to God. Do they exist independently?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

See Isaiah 45:7 God is quoted as saying:"…I make peace and create evil."

Which bible translation are you using?

My bible, approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reads that passage as:

"I form the light, and create the darkness,

I make weal and create woe;

I, the LORD, do all these things."

Yes, woe is evil for those who experience it, but sometimes woe is asked for and deserved.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is very confused. You don’t appear to know the difference between professional codes of conduct and morals.

It would be highly unethical for a psychiatrist to treat morals she doesn’t like as if it were an illness.

Maybe you want psychiatrists to lock people in a mental institution and force drugs down their throats purely whose lifestyle you don’t like, but thankfully medical professionals have far higher standards.

No, actually, the above is confused because “professional codes of conduct” should be based upon sound ethical principles not merely “lifestyles you don’t like.”

You assume personal ethics MUST BE subjective and relative and therefore all individual moral principles MUST also BE subjective. Simply not true.

If there are sound moral principles for arriving at professional codes of conduct there are, likewise, sound moral principles for arriving at personal moral codes.

Where do you suppose professional codes of conduct and personal morals come from if not distilled from sound personal ethical codes. The same sound ethical principles that can be used to distinguish good from bad professional codes of conduct can be used to distinguish good from bad subjective moral principles.

Or do you suppose professional codes of conduct are merely relative and arbitrarily arrived at? That wouldn’t make them very “professional,” now would it? Nor would it provide any reason at all for professionals to follow these “codes” any more than their own subjective feelings.

By allowing “professional codes of conduct” as having some kind of moral authority you are allowing a non-arbitrary and objective ground for morals generally. Grounds which apply to personal as well as professional ethics and codes of conduct.

 

[inocente]

Again, simply a malformed argument.

Merely because a typical Texan and typical Iranian disagree on some things does not imply they are both wrong about everything. Nor does it imply they can’t agree on crucially important things.

It isn’t a question of “who am I to judge” (an ad hominem) it is a question concerning the validity of each of their views on specific questions and how those views are validated.

Simply because I cannot spew forth my “criteria” on every possible issue that might be discordant between them succinctly in one post does not mean such issues cannot be resolved.

Your argument here, as far as I can tell, is “it’s too big an issue to resolve, therefore it can’t be.”

That would seem to describe your subjective attitude on the issue more so than it does the truth of the matter.

Basically, it is an appeal to laziness or the opposite of a slippery slope - appeal to an ostensibly unscalable height: it’s too high to scale, so be content living in the nether regions of ignorance.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here, and you sound very angry using words like “spew forth”.

You didn’t answer my question. If you’re correct and there is always one and one only rational answer, then please say which of the following is the only rational choice, and why the others must therefore ultimately be irrational: consequentialism, deontology, hedonism, natural law, pragmatism, stoicism.

I can’t think of anyone I know who would agree with you that there always has to be one and only one rational answer to every question in life, but no biggy so if you can’t try for a bit of empathy and have a simple conversation then let’s drop it

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Philosophers have no equivalent arbiter to put an end to dispute. Competing philosophical claims can all be valid logical arguments, so there’s no way to get down to one.

That’s life.

No, that’s death, the suicide of belief in truth.

There is good philosophy and there is bad philosophy. I don’t see how you don’t get that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Maybe you want psychiatrists to lock people in a mental institution and force drugs down their throats purely whose lifestyle you don’t like, but thankfully medical professionals have far higher standards.

Is this what you mean by higher ethical standards?

cleansingfiredor.com/2010/08/the-american-psychiatric-association-and-homosexuality/

 

[Tomdstone]

Hello Tom.

God didn’t create evil. Read Genesis. When God got done the work of creation, He said it was good and then He added man and woman to His created universe and then said it was very good! What God creates is good. the angels God created were also good when He made them but some fell and became evil and evil does evil so evil is what they are. Man too fell, but his deeds aren’t all evil. And he will be redeemed by God if he turns from his evils to God who holds out salvation to him if he returns to him with all his heart.

So, your question is unanswerable because in order to refute it, one would have to concede that God creates evil, which He doesn’t. Satan and those fallen angels in league with him, destroyed themselves and still prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls just as the prayer says, by the permissive will of God. They can only do their evils where God allows. Men who choose to do evil are the source of the evils they do and the ills their evils inflict on men are all man-made, again by God’s permissive will. If you understand this you won’t think the God is the author of evil. He isn’t.

Glenda

You are wrong because God said: Isaiah 45:7: “… I make peace, and create evil…” God Himself tells us that.

 

[Tomdstone]

Full context:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+45&version=RSVCE

Isaiah chapter 45
1 Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I have grasped,
to subdue nations before him
and ungird the loins of kings,
to open doors before him
that gates may not be closed:
2 “I will go before you
and level the mountains,[a]
I will break in pieces the doors of bronze
and cut asunder the bars of iron,
3 I will give you the treasures of darkness
and the hoards in secret places,
that you may know that it is I, the Lord,
the God of Israel, who call you by your name.
4 For the sake of my servant Jacob,
and Israel my chosen,
I call you by your name,
I surname you, though you do not know me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I gird you, though you do not know me,
6 that men may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe,
I am the Lord, who do all these things.

So the sense in which God ‘creates woe’ is the same sense in which He ‘creates darkness’. When we shine a light, shadows are created, and yet it is not a fault of our own that shadows form when we present light. When God creates good, their is ‘woe’ or ‘evil’ made in contrast only to the weal or the good.

Should God refrain from creating light/good so that no darkness/evil is formed from the absence of His Light/Goodness?

The Catholic Douay Rheims Bible says evil not woe.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is good philosophy and there is bad philosophy. I don’t see how you don’t get that.

Is good and bad relative to which philosopher you are talking to, or is there some objective standard which everyone agrees on to determine which is good and which is bad?