Is God Rational?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Bowser, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,384
    I can only go by what you say. Not what you think.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    I said it's jurisdiction is reality. As opposed to an epistemology based on... wishing really hard.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,384
    And I said that is what happens to a greater or lesser extent ("wishing really hard") when you bring it to questions outside its jurisdiction.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,384
    Ok, I think we're done here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    The origin of the universe is not outside of the power of empiricism, and there is nothing analogous to faith in science. Your argument is unoriginal and disingenuous.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,877
    It very much is outside of it. Empiricism can only take you back to the moment of the origination (if there was one) but not to the cause (if there was one). Sure, any theory of the origin would need to satisfy all the subsequent empirical evidence, but the theory itself is not something that empiricism can comment on.
    Not strictly, no, if one strictly abides by, say, the scientific method. The faith comes in believing an interpretation of the evidence as the truth. Most scientists would (hopefully) mostly just talk about accepting a theory as true until such time as evidence to the contrary arises.
     
  11. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    You don't know that. The universe empirically exists, and perhaps it contains the secret of it's origin.
    Belief based on evidence is not faith.
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,877
    Science assumes the universe is closed. The cause of the universe, if there is one, would reside "outside" the universe, and as such we can not empirically get to it. At best we can come up with ideas as to the cause.

    All belief is based on evidence. It is the interpretation that one puts faith in, or not.
    For example, both the theist and atheist will see a tree. This is the evidence. The theist might believe this to be evidence of God, the atheist evidence of something else. The evidence is the same, the interpretation different.
    Faith comes, as I see it, when one takes an interpretation as true without possibility of being wrong.
     
  13. Michael 345 Bali 1 week here 2 to go Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,542
    All belief is based on evidence

    No. Belief is thinking something is true. It can be or might not be. Evidence turns the belief into true

    For example, both the theist and atheist will see a tree

    OK so far

    The theist might believe this to be evidence of God

    True enough

    the atheist evidence of something else

    Also true enough

    The evidence is the same, the interpretation different

    No - missed direction. The evidence is the same the BELIEF is different

    Faith comes, as I see it, when one takes an interpretation as true without possibility of being wrong

    Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence ie no tree

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,877
    No, proof is what shows a belief to be true. Science doesn't work with proofs. Maths does. Science works with evidence, and tries to interpret the evidence as best it can. Belief is the assumption of truth. Faith is the assumption of truth without possibility of being wrong. At least that is how I see faith, to distinguish it from merely belief. Belief with utter conviction etc. But I accept my view of faith may be different to your own.
    No "but he might be blind"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I try.
    It's almost becoming a habit!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Before you have belief you must have an interpretation. One then has belief that a particular interpretation is true. Or one opts not to believe. So I stand by what I said in that the theist and atheist, for example, see the same evidence but interpret it differently, with belief following. Both can be given the various interpretations: we listen to theirs, they listen to ours, and then we pick an interpretation to believe (assuming we opt to believe in such a case).
    But evidence leads to interpretation, and from there to belief or not. So yes, their belief is different, and that belief is in a different interpretation. So I don't see your position as particularly different to mine, just different parts of the same step.
    So theists have no faith? We've agreed that they see the same evidence that atheists do: the tree. We agree that they interpret the evidence differently and hold a different belief. But, from their perspective, they have evidence (e.g. They may see the tree as being evidence for God). So then how can they have faith if faith is nothing more than belief without evidence?

    Compare this with a scientist who claims (and believes is true) that the cause of the universe is X... (X being their interpretation of the available evidence but not God).
    Does the scientist have more or less faith than the theist who believes the cause of the universe is God?
     
  15. Michael 345 Bali 1 week here 2 to go Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,542
    The tree is just a tree

    Theists come from a conclusion (god exist) and select evidence (the tree)

    Again the tree is totally neutral just a tree not evidence of anything

    The scientists has followed the evidence about the cause of the Universe and has put forward a idea (Big Bang)

    Again theist start from god did it (create the Universe) but have no evidence to back up the asertion

    Scientists has more evidence which is guess you can translate into faith

    Two ways of the AMOUNT of faith would be

    • Translate evidence into faith the scientists has more
    • Translate lack of evidence the theist has more faith
    For me a problem comes because the scientists is limited to the evidence when the amount of non evidence (faith) is unlimited

    Not a fair fight if the defendant says "I didn't do it and here is the proof"
    Prosecution says "Yes you did" and wins

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,877
    The same can be said of anything (not that it is a tree, that would be silly, but that it is what it is). It is evidence if it is used in support of an argument for a case.
    I think that's a tad simplistic and somewhat inaccurate. In another thread Jan was asked what exists that might not be evidence of God, but he has yet to answer. Be that as it may, there is no selecting of evidence as everything is considered evidence.
    And again the same can be said of anything. So are you denying that anything could be considered evidence?
    Sure, but the Big Bang isn't a cause it is the effect of whatever caused it (if indeed something did). The evidence the scientists follow starts after the bang (big or otherwise). They cannot follow to before to see what gave rise to the Big Bang. It is outside the realm of empiricism and of science. Any belief as to what caused the universe - I.e. what gave rise to the Big Bang - is based on zero evidence. Or, as you would define it, faith.
    Sure, some and possibly many start with the a priori assumption that God exists. I don't dispute that. But not all theists started that way.
    And any scientist that asserts that the Big Bang was caused by X (whatever X might be) is guilty of the same. There may not be many that make such assertions, though, where the assertion is beyond scientific testing. Many have often said that string-theory is one such assertion.
    Evidence of what? Neither has any evidence of what happened before the Big Bang, even if one ignores whether "before the Big Bang" makes sense.
    Sure, some/many theists bolt on various properties or attributes to the God they believe in that might be more questionable, but if we consider the unifying definition of God that all theists believe in it is the "ultimate cause". And with that we can only make an assumption as to whether there is one or not, whether it is worth considering it God or not, or whether one abstains from such assumptions as best one can.
    Why is that a problem? A problem for who, and for what? Are you trying to convert theists to your way of thinking? If so you need to remove them from their a priori assumption that God exists. And that is very unlikely to happen while you discuss matters that are based off of that. It is like trying to fight a fire by brushing away the flames and not tackling the root cause.
    And even when you get to the root cause it needs to be understood that it is a fundamental difference between the two of you that might never be bridged, might never be even discussed. But if it is then it at least should be done respectfully.
    That would indeed be unfair, but in this question there is no objective arbiter determining the result. Both sides state their case and walk off, result not announced, perhaps never announced (until after you die and someone tells you "you lose").

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyhoo, I do get what you're saying, but I'm trying not to be blind to the weaknesses of science, and trying not to claim that science can do what it can't.
     
  17. Michael 345 Bali 1 week here 2 to go Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,542
    No I embrace the thought which makes the case piss poor for the theist

    All things bright and beautiful,
    All creatures great and small,
    All things wise and wonderful:
    The Lord God made them all.

    http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/All_Things_Bright_and_Beautiful/

    That's the refrain followed by 5 gushings

    None of the gushings say anything about

    All things dark and horrible
    All diseases great and small
    All things dumb and ignorant
    The lord god made them all

    Why is that? You know - cherry picking. As you note

    Funny how "bad" things never get picked

    Science does not have the luxury of cherry picking has to take reality as it comes warts and all

    I would not put down - what gave rise to the Big Bang - as per science pronouncements as faith. I'd put them in the "best guess" or "educated guess" folders and both of those in the "needs more work" tray

    Heaven forbid

    Again heaven forbid

    I do find it strange and weird that sections of religion are trying to use the trappings of science and scientific means to prove existence of god but I never hear of science going to religion to test any theory

    Strange and weird

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    Empirically derived knowledge doesn't require direct observation. Only observation of something.
    No it isn't. Some of it is based on wishful thinking. Wanting something to be true based on no evidence whatsoever.
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    I agree but a theist probably thinks they have plenty of evidence in the bible☺
    Had a visit yesterday..a mate brought his mate around for some free legal advice as he blacked out and totalled a few cars and was uninsured.

    So after I told the guy he will get off and everyone was happy the car guy proceeded to tell us how God was real... his arguement was very strong..."there must be a God"...and my mate then told how big foot was real because all those eye witness reports could not be wrong.

    I told them what I thought but all still believe what they believe.

    The car guy would quote passages from the bible to support his case...that was his evidence and the mate told of people he saw describing bigfoot that was his evidence...and when I raised a valid point, like why have they not found dna for bigfoot or the multitude of errors in the bible is inconsistent with a perfect God and if he followed the word of God why doesnt he kill the folk cutting grass on a Sunday as the bible commands, ...neither changed their belief but were happy to cling to their evidence.☺

    All admitted it was great to be able to talk with no one getting upset and each are looking forward to another visit to discuss reality.
    Alex
     
  20. Michael 345 Bali 1 week here 2 to go Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,542
    What is reality when everyone enjoys their own version

    as a wise old bearded sage once said

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    The bible is indeed evidence... That people wrote a book.
     
  22. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,380
    ///
    If trees are evidence of god, I am evidence of aliens.

    <>
     
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    Yes but it also could be offerred in support of my claim the God story is made up...as support for that proposition the bible offers cinclusive evidence as it is clearly made up...it also could be offered as evidence in support of the fact that many theists are hypocrites who say on the one hand the bible is the word of God yet they close to sellect only parts that suit their delussions.
    Why do they go to church when they should be roaming the town to stone to death any human who is mowing a lawn or gathering sticks....why dont they stone their preacher..he is working on a Sunday.
    Who could read the bible and not conclude is an accumulation of camp fire stories clearly written without any influence by anyone with any inteligence or morality and certainly in no way what one may expect from the proposed mythical character who we are to believe could do all the things theists attribute to their Santa for mentally challenged humans.

    It, the bible, sure is evidence that there is no God.

    Every theist, specifically christians, I ask as to whether they have read the bible answer that they have not, those that say they have I believe lie to me for fear of being accused of believing in something but did not take the time to read the text book.

    Just had a most enjoyable hour or so watching Prof Dawkins on youtube pointing out what should be apparent to any thinking person and the experience has me wondering if the stupid people confronting him are mere actors as it is difficult to imagine so many can be so ignorant and stupid.

    And how wonderful Prof Dawkins tells it the way it is and more so that the cry from theists that atheists dont understand religion because they have failed to really become informed on the subject is shot down when clearly Prof Dawkins knows more about religion and its history than all theists that we encounter.

    Theists waffle about made up stuff and convolute discussions with irrelevant waffle always failing to address the issue of evidence and fact.

    As I said earlier our resident theists here only waffle whilst building strawmen and casting out red herrings..and they present as well spoken so you could think they are inteligent..well certainly well educated but presumably brain washed to the point reason has been erroded.....never do they say anything meaningful which sadly is understandable because they got nothing.

    Their arrogance is tiresome.

    My advice to all of them is to read your bible cover to cover and become an atheist as the bible provides undisputable evidence that it is all made up and that is why they can only waffle on in a tiresome stupid manner.

    Alex
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018

Share This Page