Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Helpful_Atheist]

If you are a vicious wall adversary it is you who needs to change in a different way than an empathetic wall hugger - who already has an agreeable relationship with the wall - would need to.

In a sense, your “relationship” or “covenant agreement” with the wall would be different for you as a wall antagonist than for you as a protagonist. Different expectations (laws that dictate how you behave) would exist for you as antagonist than for you as protagonist. The antagonist would have a lot of “cease and desist” kinds of expectations for them to overcome before they could enter into a “friendly covenant” with the wall. Since the protagonist already has a friendly covenant, those cease and desist expectations (Thou Shalt Not laws) would not exist because they would be unnecessary. The wall, however, remains unchanged.

Of course the rules are changing for everyone not just the people who are having an agreeable relationship and it isn’t just about antagonization. For example animal sacrifice was at one time used with Judaism but when then fazed out over time, not by the people but by God. So if at one point God wants sacrifice (for example killing a lamb and hanging it by your door so God knows you are righteous and will not slaughter you) and later condemns the idea of animal sacrifice then yes the Lord has changed what he wants

 

[RGCheek]

Certainly, but “Reason” meaning of the kind which seeks to understand truth not merely to USE truth to advantage.

Thus: “…the unjust man, as pursuing what clings closely to reality, to truth, and not regulating his life by opinion, desires not to seem but to be unjust…”

A “user” of truth is an altogether different kind of beast than a “seeker" of truth is.

It is entirely possible to seek the truth in order to use it to advantage (clinging closely to it,) but precisely because of a recognition that truth reflects reality and, therefore, to uncover the truth means having real power to effect change on reality.

So seeking truth in order to use it for advantage (unjust man) is quite a different matter from seeking the truth in order to understand the nature and order inherent in reality (just man).

Very good; thank you.

Still, to take your distinction too literally, you would seem to praise the scientist and damn the engineer, though I feel sure you do not intend way…do you?

 

[RGCheek]

Of course the rules are changing for everyone not just the people who are having an agreeable relationship and it isn’t just about antagonization. For example animal sacrifice was at one time used with Judaism but when then fazed out over time, not by the people but by God. So if at one point God wants sacrifice (for example killing a lamb and hanging it by your door so God knows you are righteous and will not slaughter you) and later condemns the idea of animal sacrifice then yes the Lord has changed what he wants

Or maybe mankind has changed and so God’s response to mankind changed as well?

BTW, I don’t mean to offend with any of my posts regarding atheism, and I offer my apologies if I do offend you.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

More people believe the lunar landings were faked than believe that there is no God, so are we, when discussing atheism, not discussing a fringe concept that has lost severely in the market place of ideas (2% atheist vrs 6% believing the moon landings faked)?
experts123.com/q/how-many-americans-believe-the-moon-landings-were-a-hoax.html

There is strong evidence for the existence of God and also AGAINST the idea that the lunar landings were faked.

Few take discussions of faked moon landings seriously, why should we take claims for atheism seriously? Is atheism rational? Are the claims the moon landings faked rational? But more believe the latter than that God does not exist.

God has been modeled mathematically by Cantor, at least he thought his transfinite numbering system did that.

So if God can be modeled, how can the concept of God itself be irrational?

If Plato and Aristotle arrived at a concept of a Creator centuries before Jesus was born, and all done without revelation or Christian influence but only by the use of reason, how can it seriously be claimed that the idea of God is irrational?

No, I think atheism irrational, not the concept of a Creator.

Ok so you’re argument is “Ridiculous idea A is more popular than atheism so therefore atheism is even more silly than Ridiculous idea A” am I right? Because there is quite a bit wrong with that, for 1 an idea is no more or less true because of how popular/unpopular it is(It’s also important to keep in mind that 16% of the world population is non-religious along with the 2% of atheists). At one point in time the belief that the world was round was in the minority but it turned out to be true. Secondly even if someone could mathematically model God that doesn’t mean there is a God or that it is any more probable that there is one(not to mention you *ed the word he which makes it look like you don’t agree). Moreover I would like to hear some of this strong evidence of God that you have. And to be clear Plato and Aristotle were not in any way involved in Christianity and believed in multiple gods.

 

[adawgj]

Ok so you’re argument is “Ridiculous idea A is more popular than atheism so therefore atheism is even more silly than Ridiculous idea A” am I right? Because there is quite a bit wrong with that, for 1 an idea is no more or less true because of how popular/unpopular it is(It’s also important to keep in mind that 16% of the world population is non-religious along with the 2% of atheists). At one point in time the belief that the world was round was in the minority but it turned out to be true. Secondly even if someone could mathematically model God that doesn’t mean there is a God or that it is any more probable that there is one(not to mention you *ed the word he which makes it look like you don’t agree). Moreover I would like to hear some of this strong evidence of God that you have. And to be clear Plato and Aristotle were not in any way involved in Christianity and believed in multiple gods.

How would Plato and Aristotle be involved in Christianity they were alive way before Christianity? However St. Thomas Aquinas did integrate a lot of Aristotle and Plato’s ideas into Catholic theology.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

How would Plato and Aristotle be involved in Christianity they were alive way before Christianity? However St. Thomas Aquinas did integrate a lot of Aristotle and Plato’s ideas into Catholic theology.

Well the person had said that Aristotle and Plato came to the idea of creator’s before Jesus was born and I just felt that I should clarify that the idea of creator’s long predates aristotle and Plato and that it was superfluous to connect those two to christianity

 

[adawgj]

Well the person had said that Aristotle and Plato came to the idea of creator’s before Jesus was born and I just felt that I should clarify that the idea of creator’s long predates aristotle and Plato and that it was superfluous to connect those two to christianity

True, but with such a broad concept of God as creator, does lead to commonalities between Plato, Aristotle, and Christianity.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

True, but with such a broad concept of God as creator, does lead to commonalities between Plato, Aristotle, and Christianity.

I suppose if you chose to broaden it however the religious views of Aristotle and Plato are vastly different than those of Christians other than, there was a powerful man who created us in Greek religions they then went on about how that man had children who rose up against him and killed him and they had a bunch of kids and messed with mortals and had half god-half mortal kids which is quite different from Christianity.

 

[adawgj]

I suppose if you chose to broaden it however the religious views of Aristotle and Plato are vastly different than those of Christians other than, there was a powerful man who created us in Greek religions they then went on about how that man had children who rose up against him and killed him and they had a bunch of kids and messed with mortals and had half god-half mortal kids which is quite different from Christianity.

I think what the person meant was the first cause argument which both Plato and Aristotle were some of the firsts to philosophically reason it.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I think what the person meant was the first cause argument which both Plato and Aristotle were some of the firsts to philosophically reason it.

While the person says “concept of a creator” they could mean first cause and while Plato and Aristotle might have been the first to philosophically discuss it that has no bearing on Christianity. I am still waiting to hear their “strong evidence of God”.

 

[RGCheek]

Ok so you’re argument is “Ridiculous idea A is more popular than atheism so therefore atheism is even more silly than Ridiculous idea A” am I right?

No, since you presume that the ideas are ridiculous. That would be similar to criticizing the peer review process by saying “suppose someone published ridiculous idea A…” Well, no, that doesn’t demonstrate anything other than confirmation bias.

Because there is quite a bit wrong with that, for 1 an idea is no more or less true because of how popular/unpopular it is(It’s also important to keep in mind that 16% of the world population is non-religious along with the 2% of atheists).

Nonreligious does not equate to anything resembling atheist, so that fig leaf does you no good at all. And the concept of a market place of ideas where the best ideas win out and become more popular among those educated in rational thought is more valid than a group of theoreticians guessing which ideology would be best.

For instance the “line” in football gambling is the most reliable indicator of win/loss regularly, out-performing the experts year after year and the line is set by THE MAJORITY who bet with their own money on who will win.

Elitists disdain the collected wisdom of the rational population to their own loss.

At one point in time the belief that the world was round was in the minority but it turned out to be true.

That is a myth. The spherical nature of our world was known since the atomists measured the differing angles of sunlight at summer solar solstice in Egypt compared to Britain.

Secondly even if someone could mathematically model God that doesn’t mean there is a God or that it is any more probable that there is one(not to mention you *ed the word he which makes it look like you don’t agree).

I didn’t say it proved God existed but only that the idea of God is rational and therefore belief in said rational concept is also rational.

Moreover I would like to hear some of this strong evidence of God that you have. And to be clear Plato and Aristotle were not in any way involved in Christianity and believed in multiple gods.

Plato believed in the Creator though he may have also believed in nonsensical polytheistic deities or maybe merely honored them for social reasons. Aristotle was monotheistic, IIRC.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theology

 

[RGCheek]

Well the person had said that Aristotle and Plato came to the idea of creator’s before Jesus was born and I just felt that I should clarify that the idea of creator’s long predates aristotle and Plato and that it was superfluous to connect those two to christianity

The idea of an omnipotent Creator was a common thread between Aristotlean thought and Western Christian theology for centuries after 1100 AD. The Muslims revered the man as they considered his idea of the Creator almost identical to Allah.

You split hairs and call it a forrest.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Well for one I said “ridiculous idea A” because that is what I believed you were comparing the people who doubt the moon landing and atheism. Secondly the group of non-religious is actually made up in part by people who don’t believe in god so it is actually related to atheism, and my point about popularity was simply saying that just because a group is currently in the minority does not mean it is any less valid than other ideas. And would you mind explaining to me how modeling God with a numbering system makes him any more rational?

 

[Tomdstone]

The Unmoved is ever-present, so didn’t change “location.".

The Bread and Wine is not essentially equal to God until after the words of Consecration, when the Bread and Wine becomes essentially God. So the essential location has changed, because the Bread and Wine are no longer at the location.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I suppose if you chose to broaden it however the religious views of Aristotle and Plato are vastly different than those of Christians other than, there was a powerful man who created us in Greek religions they then went on about how that man had children who rose up against him and killed him and they had a bunch of kids and messed with mortals and had half god-half mortal kids which is quite different from Christianity.

I hope your argument is not this:

All ancient Greeks believed in the gods of Mt. Olympus.
Plato and Aristotle were ancient Greeks.
Therefore, Plato and Aristotle believed in the gods of Mt. Olympus.

Show, if you don’t mind, where either Plato or Aristotle definitively argue for the existence of the Homeric gods, rather than merely treat them as topics of discussion within their writings.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Bread and Wine is not essentially equal to God until after the words of Consecration, when the Bread and Wine becomes essentially God. So the essential location has changed, because the Bread and Wine are no longer at the location.

Bread and wine never “essentially equal” God. This idea that “the Bread and Wine becomes essentially God” just IS confused.

…the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. …we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther’s doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ. Thus, too, the theory of Impanation advocated by Osiander and certain Berengarians, and according to which a hypostatic union is supposed to take place between the substance of the bread and the God-man (impanatio = Deus panis factus), is authoritatively rejected.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

While it may be true that “the bread and wine are no longer at the location,” they “depart” in substance, but that does not mean God changes, it means the bread and wine do.

This idea that God becomes bread and bread becomes God as implied in your “The Bread and Wine is not essentially equal to God until after the words of Consecration, when the Bread and Wine becomes essentially God” is the “impanatio” theory of Osiander.

 

[Tomdstone]

While it may be true that “the bread and wine are no longer at the location,” they “depart” in substance, but that does not mean God changes, it means the bread and wine do.

At the Incarnation, God came down from Heaven and was made man. In ordinary parlance, coming down from Heaven denotes movement. However, God is unMoved, and yet He comes down from Heaven and becomes present in the Eucharist after the words of Consecration.
Is it true that the UnMoved does move, since the UnMoved has come down from Heaven?

 

[Peter_Plato]

At the Incarnation, God came down from Heaven and was made man. In ordinary parlance, coming down from Heaven denotes movement. However, God is unMoved, and yet He comes down from Heaven and becomes present in the Eucharist after the words of Consecration.
Is it true that the UnMoved does move, since the UnMoved has come down from Heaven?

Obviously "coming down from Heaven” is figurative language. You cannot use a metaphor to argue the truth of your point because by doing so you are turning the figure of speech into a literal expression (committing an equivocation) in the very act of employing it. You turn Heaven into a location in time-space by turning “coming down” into a literal act. Where is Heaven located in the space-time continuum, exactly? Heaven is eternal and immaterial so one doesn’t “come down” from it in the same sense as you would, say, “come down” from Boston to New York.

If you want to continue insisting “come down from Heaven” involves motion in the sense you want us to believe it does, then show the location of Heaven on Google maps so we can all check that motion is required for Jesus to relocate whenever a Mass occurs.

The error of your position is shown by “Is it true that the UnMoved does move,…” since, obviously “Unmoved” logically excludes “does move” from the realm of its possibilities. If an Unmoved Mover does “move” in any sense, it can’t be “unmoved,” any longer, right? Using moving and Unmoved, both to describe the same entity infringes the law of non-contradiction in the same way that a squared circle does.

 

[RGCheek]

Well for one I said “ridiculous idea A” because that is what I believed you were comparing the people who doubt the moon landing and atheism.

It still shows confirmation bias in that you have decided both ideas ridiculous before even forming the argument for or against. Why label it so?

Secondly the group of non-religious is actually made up in part by people who don’t believe in god so it is actually related to atheism,

Lol, I love semantics. Those who do ‘not believe in God’ are atheists. Those who do not know are agnostics and not atheists. Most of the nonreligious are simply people who are between the church they grew up in and a probable new church that is more consistent with their personal beliefs. The main stream Protestant denominations are hemorrhaging members who do not like their new emphasis on the social gospel and are in the process of leaving their old denominations that leave them cold and moving to new denominations that they feel a deeper part of. Most of them are between religions not anti-religion.

In any case it does not magically grow atheism beyond its 2%.

and my point about popularity was simply saying that just because a group is currently in the minority does not mean it is any less valid than other ideas.

I think it indicates (does not prove) that the idea is less competitive, especially when you show the change over time. Atheism once had about 25% of the worlds population in the USSR and its allied nations, along with China. Now China and its block of satellite nations are about 40% atheist even there, and it is falling, being replaced by Christianity and Islam.

And would you mind explaining to me how modeling God with a numbering system makes him any more rational?

A thing that can be modeled mathematically is inherently rational. It may be invalid in other respects, but there is nothing internally irrational about it.

It is a characteristic of mathematics that systems of mathematics have been developed and only later, sometimes centuries later, we then find actual parts of the Reality we live in that is exactly modeled by the previously developed system.

One example would be imaginary numbers which are used to model electric circuitry.

Again, no offense was intended in any of my responses.

 

[RGCheek]

Obviously "coming down from Heaven” is figurative language. You cannot use a metaphor to argue the truth of your point because by doing so you are turning the figure of speech into a literal expression (committing an equivocation) in the very act of employing it. You turn Heaven into a location in time-space by turning “coming down” into a literal act. Where is Heaven located in the space-time continuum, exactly? Heaven is eternal and immaterial so one doesn’t “come down” from it in the same sense as you would, say, “come down” from Boston to New York.

If you want to continue insisting “come down from Heaven” involves motion in the sense you want us to believe it does, then show the location of Heaven on Google maps so we can all check that motion is required for Jesus to relocate whenever a Mass occurs.

The error of your position is shown by “Is it true that the UnMoved does move,…” since, obviously “Unmoved” logically excludes “does move” from the realm of its possibilities. If an Unmoved Mover does “move” in any sense, it can’t be “unmoved,” any longer, right? Using moving and Unmoved, both to describe the same entity infringes the law of non-contradiction in the same way that a squared circle does.

But Jesus is part of God, right? And He did move once on Earth.

Why cant we have God the Father being the unmoved and unmovable, while the Son is the interface between the Father and His Creation Who does all the necessary moving?

I apologize for my amateurish terms and phrases, and appreciate your time and effort with your responses. You make me wish this site had a ‘like’ button for posts, lol.