From: Is belief in God rational?

[Asimov]

Ok, so some people think it's innapropriate to discuss things in a poll...as if that has never happened before.

 

I request an explanation as to why someone believes in a "sentient creator", and they get all offended.

 

Do I think belief in God is irrational? Yes. I've already explained why in the previous thread.

 

To presuppose that something exists, there must be some justification for it. Meaningless fairy tale beliefs are just that...meaningless.

 

Why is it that you believe in a "sentient creator"? What justification do you have? What purpose does it serve? What logic are you using?

 

If it's a belief that rests on none of these....then it's irrational.

[Asimov]

no one is willing to comment on what I'm saying?

[MrSpooky]

I think some people just look into the proofs of natural theology and ignore the religious aspect.

 

However, upon deeper analysis, the arguments generally fall apart.

[Vigile]

no one is willing to comment on what I'm saying?

 

I put in my .02 yesterday on the poll thread. It seemed my response was leading to a debate there so I let it go. People on this site are all at various stages in their escape from the clutches of religion and their understanding and acceptance of secular proofs reflect that I think.

 

Again I will state, it is unscientific and irrational to assert a god, even if god is by definition just some organic creature from an advanced society that placed us here. There are several logical problems with this assertation; certainly more than the two issues of simplicity and falsifiability that I raised in the other thread.

 

Has anyone ever tried to define god before arguing his existence? Here is my presumptuous definition of god:

 

God is that which we have not yet explained by science. The more discoveries we make, the smaller god becomes. That's it. God is James Fennimore Cooper's pastoral myth of the dark forest. The forest is full of mystery and fear because we have not yet explored the forest.

 

If people still wish to believe in god or spirits or the supernatural, they are free to do so, but they must understand that they cannot call these beliefs rational. They can only get there based on faith and conjecture.

[Ouroboros]

Considering that there's no way to define Gods nature or functions or attributes, then there's no way of validating what/who God is. So even if we would see God straight in his face, we can't be sure it's God that we see.

 

An entity that can’t be defined can’t be validated to exist by testing or reasoning.

 

If you have no way of validating his existence, by testing or reasoning, then it’s irrational to argue his existence.

 

 

(Vigile your post was very good, I think it was better then mine, but I had to give my 2cents)

[Asimov]

I think some people just look into the proofs of natural theology and ignore the religious aspect.

 

However, upon deeper analysis, the arguments generally fall apart.

 

 

That's my point, MrSpooky.

 

I'm asking non-christian theists or deists to validate their belief, and show how it is rational.

[MrSpooky]

Yay. X-ray started new thread. Let's take it over there.

[IAm_Lucifer]

That's my point, MrSpooky.

 

I'm asking non-christian theists or deists to validate their belief, and show how it is rational.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In the other thread I said I did not know if it was rational or not. But after reading these two sentences

 

To presuppose that something exists, there must be some justification for it. Meaningless fairy tale beliefs are just that...meaningless.

 

I have to agree with you. I find it very irrational.

 

I do not understand why someone would even be Deist. It seems too unreal to me and nothing more than wishful thinking. There must be some justification for believing something. Gods included.

 

(I hope no one says nature)

[-Demona-]

In all honesty, I don't really know how to respond to this question. I know I can't prove the existence of a God, anymore than a Christian can prove the existence of Biblegod without the use of the Bible.

 

And, sorry to disappoint you IAm_Lucifer, but I do revere nature. To me, personally, the universe/nature is a living, "breathing" organism that may have been created by some other entity. Yes, that comes across as very vague, but the guessed-at creating entity takes no part in the working of the universe day-to-day. I think our Deist friends would say something similar.

 

...And my mom just derailed my train of thought by bitching at me over some drain cleaner. Gah. (I love her, but she drives me nuts.)

 

Oh, well. I may get it back on track sometime.

[Ouroboros]

In the other thread I said I did not know if it was rational or not. But after reading these two sentences

I have to agree with you. I find it very irrational.

 

I do not understand why someone would even be Deist. It seems too unreal to me and nothing more than wishful thinking. There must be some justification for believing something. Gods included.

 

(I hope no one says nature)

 

Yes. Deism is also based on irrational thinking, but differs from Theism that it doesn’t claim a certain defined nature of God, First Mover, First Cause, Nature or whatever you want to call it. A Deist should base his claim on fideism; faith only argued from emotions. A Deist knows and accepts this and also knows that his belief is irrational, and can’t be explained by reason. We have no reason to deny someone his belief, if they know that it is in itself irrational.

 

A Theist would give God epithets and attributes, and would like him to be sentient, personal and intelligent. A Theist would explain God to have certain morals and have certain motives. This is absurd, considering they have never met him and never seen him and never found any proof of his existence. It would be just wishful thinking.

[Amethyst]

I agree that belief in the Christian god, or any other manmade deity, is not logical. But I don't see why we should have to throw the entire baby out with the bathwater. We can't prove that a higher being, life force, or whatever exists. We also can't prove that it doesn't exist. I'm not willing to say 100% for certain that it doesn't exist without proof. Neither am I willing to say that it does for sure exist, because that would not be based on logic.

[Ouroboros]

I agree that belief in the Christian god, or any other manmade deity, is not logical.  But I don't see why we should have to throw the entire baby out with the bathwater.  We can't prove that a higher being, life force, or whatever exists.  We also can't prove that it doesn't exist.  I'm not willing to say 100% for certain that it doesn't exist without proof.  Neither am I willing to say that it does for sure exist, because that would not be based on logic.

 

Amen, Amethyst!

 

You got it right.

[-Demona-]

I agree that belief in the Christian god, or any other manmade deity, is not logical.  But I don't see why we should have to throw the entire baby out with the bathwater.  We can't prove that a higher being, life force, or whatever exists.  We also can't prove that it doesn't exist.  I'm not willing to say 100% for certain that it doesn't exist without proof.  Neither am I willing to say that it does for sure exist, because that would not be based on logic.

 

You said what I meant, in much better terms than I managed.

[IAm_Lucifer]

I agree that belief in the Christian god, or any other manmade deity, is not logical.  But I don't see why we should have to throw the entire baby out with the bathwater.  We can't prove that a higher being, life force, or whatever exists.  We also can't prove that it doesn't exist.  I'm not willing to say 100% for certain that it doesn't exist without proof.  Neither am I willing to say that it does for sure exist, because that would not be based on logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I use to agree with this and I see that there are other people who strongly agree with you but I will fall back on what Asimov said.

 

To presuppose that something exists, there must be some justification for it.

 

I do not understand why you would believe in a God. If you can't prove it either way. why aren't you Agnostic?

 

I do not agree that a God was responsible for "nature" as it is today considering what "nature" is like and how long it has had to get to where it is now.

 

And I like the fact that I'm disagreeing with other nonchristians. It shows how diverse we are.

[IAm_Lucifer]

Why aren't you Agnostic

 

I just realsed that you are Amethyst.

 

What about the others?

[Ouroboros]

I'm also agnostic, but lean towards atheism.

 

Deists have their right to believe. It's an emotional decision they've made to give comfort, and it's not a rational argument for their belief, but still you can believe if you want to. Deism is irrational.

 

If I told you a story about my life, and you heard it, you would make a decision, before you had any proof, if you believed me or not. That's an emotional argument for your belief. This is irrational by nature, either way you chose. (Deism)

 

When me or someone else present you facts proving my story, or contradicting my story, you will make you decision to know for a fact that I told the truth or lied. Now you believing or not, in my story, will be based on a rational argument. (Who has the facts for God or not God?)

 

But most arguments and lack of evidence for Gods existence, leads us by the parsimony principle, to not believe there is a God.

 

But us humans we are still looking for the facts to prove either camp.

[Asimov]

I agree that belief in the Christian god, or any other manmade deity, is not logical.  But I don't see why we should have to throw the entire baby out with the bathwater.  We can't prove that a higher being, life force, or whatever exists.  We also can't prove that it doesn't exist.  I'm not willing to say 100% for certain that it doesn't exist without proof.  Neither am I willing to say that it does for sure exist, because that would not be based on logic.

 

Amethyst...that's not the stance of Strong Atheism; to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that is.

 

Why should we presuppose that a higher being, life force, or whatever exists? We shouldn't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't accept that they MAY exist.

 

Furthermore, "higher being", "life force", and "whatever" are ambiguous and subjective.

 

Unless there is justifiable reason to presuppose (for instance, black holes were theorised before they were observed...) that something exists, then we shouldn't claim it does.

[Ouroboros]

Amethyst...that's not the stance of Strong Atheism; to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that is.

 

Why should we presuppose that a higher being, life force, or whatever exists?  We shouldn't.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't accept  that they MAY exist.

 

Furthermore, "higher being", "life force", and "whatever" are ambiguous and subjective.   

 

Unless there is justifiable reason to presuppose (for instance, black holes were theorised before they were observed...) that something exists, then we shouldn't claim it does.

 

I thought Strong Atheists were convinced that there is no God, and there never will be any proof to the otherwise?

 

I guess I have to check how the Strong vs Weak(?) Atheists are different.

[Asimov]

I thought Strong Atheists were convinced that there is no God, and there never will be any proof to the otherwise?

 

I guess I have to check how the Strong vs Weak(?) Atheists are different.

 

 

I'm convinced that the term God is meaningless, which is what SA combats.

[spamandham]

I'm convinced that the term God is meaningless, which is what SA combats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree that the term is meaningless when you analyze it.

 

God as "creator" of the universe? We can go into why that's nothing more than word salad.

 

God as a sentient "life force"? Add some balsamic vinegarette dressing to the salad.

 

The very concept of "supernatural" is nothing more than a bunch of allusions back to the natural claimed to be not natural.

 

If there is a "supernatural", humans have no framework from which to comprehend it, meaning that no-one knows WTF the word is supposed to mean. It means whatever you want it to mean today; i.e., it is meaningless.

 

How can people claim to believe in something that is incomprehensible and undefined.

 

"I don't know what I'm talking about, but I believe it nonetheless."

"I don't know what you're talking about, but I know it doesn't exist."

 

Neither of these statements is particularly flattering to the person making them. Before you say you do or you don't believe, it would be best to define in comprehensible terms what it is your talking about.

[Guest Peyton]

Hi again,

 

I've moved away from my belief in a Sentient Creator, not just because of Asimov's challenging but because I really, seriously thought about it and realised that my need to believe was because I needed comfort, a sense of there being some kind of order within things. I've never believed in anything after life but I found the thought of us just here and then gone frightening and needed there to be some sense of 'something' otherwise it would have all been too much for me.

 

I was watching a Woody Allen film last night, 'September'. I bought a copy yesterday from a car boot sale. In it Sam Waterston's character is speaking with Jack Warden's and Jack talks about the universe and he described it as "haphazard, morally neutral, and unimaginably violent" and although I'm not sure that's true for me, it made me realise that although I have attempted to apply logic and reason to things, there are far more things that don't fit into an ordered world, there's plenty of chaos out there as well.

 

As such, I am slowly moving into an Atheist perspective, which I find rather scary. Looking at a website I occasionally go to (The Assertive Atheist) it made me realise that even Bible-believing Christians are Atheists with regard to other religions and belief systems, so the only real difference between them and me is they believe in one more 'God'. I would like to thank Asimov for daring to challenge me and apologise to him for becoming defensive in return. I still have a residue of guilt with regard to my time in church and a part of me still thinks I am going to be punished for what I'm daring to think. I hope that goes away in time. I am moving into a whole new world and way of looking at life and that's probably a good thing.

 

All the best,

 

Peyton.

[Guest Peyton]

I request an explanation as to why someone believes in a "sentient creator", and they get all offended.

 

It wasn't that I was offended though I was a little defensive, partly because I thought you were being bloody rude and I still do to some extent. You do come across as someone who feels that your own views are the correct ones and everyone else here is wrong. I myself may be wrong in that though.

 

If someone chooses to believe in a Sentient Creator or be a Deist then that is up to them, that is why I was not happy with your line in questioning. I have now moved into an Atheistic perspective because what you said made me question my own views, it's not because I feel I have to bow down to what you feel is correct.

 

This is my very last post here at Ex-Christian.net. I would like to thank everyone here for making my stay (in the main) a welcome one.

 

All the best to you all,

 

Peyton.

[Amethyst]

I just realsed that you are Amethyst.

 

Yep.

 

 

Furthermore, "higher being", "life force", and "whatever" are ambiguous and subjective.

 

Unless there is justifiable reason to presuppose (for instance, black holes were theorised before they were observed...) that something exists, then we shouldn't claim it does.

 

I don't entirely disagree with you. I'm not willing to say that something for certain exists, but I'm also not willing to say that it doesn't.

[MrSpooky]

I was watching a Woody Allen film last night, 'September'. I bought a copy yesterday from a car boot sale. In it Sam Waterston's character is speaking with Jack Warden's and Jack talks about the universe and he described it as "haphazard, morally neutral, and unimaginably violent" and although I'm not sure that's true for me, it made me realise that although I have attempted to apply logic and reason to things, there are far more things that don't fit into an ordered world, there's plenty of chaos out there as well.

 

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about "Order."

 

Many, many ancient myths and legends assert that the world was born out of some primordial form of "Chaos." That is, "Order" arose from "Chaos," often at the hand of a sentient being (i.e. God). When people try to distinguish the two, they point to creative, positive forces as examples of Order (such as plants growing and creatures being "designed" by evolution) and destructive, negative forces as examples of Chaos. As creatures who usually prefer the former and shun the latter, this makes sense to a degree, but it falls apart under closer analysis.

 

Everything has limited, finite, and determinate properties. We know that an agent produces particular and determinate effects in accordance with those properties. A ball, tossed at a wall, will generally bounce back because it is bouncy. Crystals will generally form in salt water as the water evaporates because of its specific chemical properties. And given the right coalescence of water and wind currents, a hurricane will form.

 

We see then that "chance," "randomness," and "Chaos" aren't exactly inherent in reality as we understand it classically. Things that we attribute to "Chaos" (such as storms, supernovae, etc) are in themselves perfectly ordered structures and events that arise from known, natural physical causes. Even fully "random" effects such as atomic decay follows pretty determinate probability curves. We only appeal to "Chaos" when we do not know HOW something is caused. The dichotomy between "Order" and "Chaos" is an epistemic matter, NOT a metaphysical one. We appeal to "Chaos" only due to the limitations of the human intellect, it has no bearing in reality.

 

Order is an inherent property of reality, pure and simple, naturally prescribed transcendentally. There's nothing particularly special or rare about it, because the struggle between "Order" and "Chaos" is an illusion.

 

The question then reduces to a scientific matter... CAN such seemingly miraculously ordered things as life come about without the intelligent guidance of a God? I would point you towards the success of evolutionary biology.

[Asimov]

Neither of these statements is particularly flattering to the person making them.  Before you say you do or you don't believe, it would be best to define in comprehensible terms what it is your talking about.

 

Why should I have to define in comprehensible terms what someone else claims to believe in?