"God" is rational

[Norsefire]

Yes. God is a rational idea. What is irrational is believing in God, because of the lack of objective evidence.

The reason I think so is because the core concept isn't unreasonable. As for you atheists, in order to eliminate bias, imagine that there is no such thing as religion, and there never was.

As we are going about attempting to explain the universe, someone suggests the possibility that it was created. They make no other suggestion beyond that.

Would you find it an unreasonable idea?

The reason I find the core concept of God to be rational is because it is based on logistics and observations; for instance:

1) man observes universe
2) man questions the origin of universe
3) man knows that he can create complexity
4) man thinks up the idea that the universe was created

Although there is no actual objective evidence for God (thus, believing is irrational, whereas the supposition isn't), it should be easy to understand where the idea comes from and how it comes about.

We Humans know that, since we create things, it's possible we were created. I think that's where the idea of God comes from.

We Humans, being intelligent, know that we can create complexity; we've created computers, buildings, and all sorts of unnatural things that require an intelligent mind. To suppose that our universe was created, as an idea, isn't irrational. It's a very real possibility.

The problem is, logics can only carry you so far; it should be understandable, logistically, where the concept of God comes from. However, neither logics nor evidence can go beyond this core concept.

That is why scripture, in being an interpretation of the concept, and in being so specific about the nature and identity and intent and ability of this Creator (force of creation), is irrational. Although I can use logics to suppose a creator, I cannot use logics beyond that; there is nothing in logics that makes me think the creator is a white bearded human figure who lives in heaven with angels. That is irrational.

What I am trying to say is the concept of God, and nothing beyond this, is not irrational, as an idea. It takes what we Humans know to be true, which is intelligent causation, and applies it to our own universe.

Edit: Please remember, I am not referring to any specific scripture or religion, but rather the core idea that they all suppose.

 

[spidergoat]

The complexity of man accumulated through a non-intelligent process of trial and error. So, you make the fundamental mistake of thinking complex things must come from a complex source.

 

[Norsefire]

The complexity of man accumulated through a non-intelligent process of trial and error. So, you make the fundamental mistake of thinking complex things must come from a complex source.

I was thinking more along the lines of the origin of the entire universe, not just man.

Spidergoat, it's more of thinking complex things can have come from a complex source, instead of "must"; thinking they can have isn't irrational. That's how the concept comes about. We know intelligence can create complexity, so it's only logical to connect so to so, and suppose that our universe was created.

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

There's (more than)one huge error with this thinking, What created God?

 

[Norsefire]

There's (more than)one huge error with this thinking, What created God?

This would be irrelevant; although a great question, it doesn't exclude the possibility that we were created just because we can't explain the creation of the creator. Similarly, nature doesn't make sense, because, what created nature? How did nature come to be?

Betrayer, if Mankind created a universe, do you think that makes us gods?

 

[spidergoat]

I was thinking more along the lines of the origin of the entire universe, not just man.

Spidergoat, it's more of thinking complex things can have come from a complex source, instead of "must"; thinking they can have isn't irrational. That's how the concept comes about. We know intelligence can create complexity, so it's only logical to connect so to so, and suppose that our universe was created.

Intelligence has never created anything as complex as even the simplest bacterium. Evolved things have qualities that designed things do not, since evolution cannot make certain kinds of leaps of intuition. For instance, our eyes are formed in such a way that no designer would make. We have vestigal organs. The solutions that evolution can come up with are limited to what it starts with. Dawkins covers this in "Climing Mount Improbable". Once a creature starts up a certain peak, representing the optimal solution to a problem, it can't go backwards and climb a different peak. Designed things contain evidence of their being designed, but evolved things only have the outward appearance of design. They are "designoid".

 

[Cris]

Norse,

1) man observes universe
2) man questions the origin of universe
3) man knows that he can create complexity
4) man thinks up the idea that the universe was created

Point 3 is false. Man has never created anything. He rearranges existing materials and forms different adaptations of things that already exist. Over time those continuous adaptations (an essentially evolutionary process) results in degrees of complexity quite different from the original starting point. In effect it is evolved intelligence that has arisen from billions of years of natural evolution that is increasing the evolutionary pace in certain areas.

Point 4 then becomes an invalid conclusion based on the failed premise of point 3.

We Humans know that, since we create things, it's possible we were created. I think that's where the idea of God comes from.

False conclusion. We have no evidence that anything has ever been created, by man or whatever.

We Humans, being intelligent, know that we can create complexity; we've created computers, buildings, and all sorts of unnatural things that require an intelligent mind. To suppose that our universe was created, as an idea, isn't irrational. It's a very real possibility.

Same false conclusion. Our only observation is that things evolve.

What I am trying to say is the concept of God, and nothing beyond this, is not irrational, as an idea. It takes what we Humans know to be true, which is intelligent causation, and applies it to our own universe.

And even there the concept as an imaginative speculation has no rational basis.

 

[S.A.M.]

IMO, you either believe in causality or you don't. Randomness does not define what I see of the universe.

 

[(Q)]

The reason I find the core concept of God to be rational is because it is based on logistics and observations; for instance:

1) man observes universe
2) man questions the origin of universe
3) man knows that he can create complexity
4) man thinks up the idea that the universe was created

Although 3 and 4 are false, there is absolutely nothing there that would lead one to come to a conclusion of gods.

 

[Cris]

SAM,

IMO, you either believe in causality or you don't. Randomness does not define what I see of the universe.

You are confusing three very different concepts.

1. Creation and destruction.
2. Cause and effect.
3. Randomness.

Creation is the act of making something from nothing, e.g. a god creates the universe, he designs a human being from no preceding stage, etc.

Destruction is the total annihilation of something and returning it to nothing.

We have no indication that creation or destruction can occur or has ever occurred.

Cause is an event within a continuous chain of events where each has a subsequent effect, that can in turn be a cause for an additional event.

Randomness is an event that has no predictable cause.

In virtaully all aspects of the universe and life we see next to no randomness. The attractive and repulsive forces between atoms and elements lead to inevitable reactions and effects. Given sufficient time and motion complexity tends to form through these natural atomic forces. There is nothing random about those interactions and cause and effect reactions.

 

[CheskiChips]

You should not be allowed to start a thread that isn't debatable.

 

[Myles]

You should not be allowed to start a thread that isn't debatable.

Agreed. Look at some of his other threads and tell me he is not a troll.. Nobody could be that stupid.

 

[Norsefire]

Norse,

Point 3 is false. Man has never created anything. He rearranges existing materials and forms different adaptations of things that already exist. Over time those continuous adaptations (an essentially evolutionary process) results in degrees of complexity quite different from the original starting point. In effect it is evolved intelligence that has arisen from billions of years of natural evolution that is increasing the evolutionary pace in certain areas.

And this is what I mean by "creates"; obviously not out of thin air, but builds, creates, you know what I mean.

False conclusion. We have no evidence that anything has ever been created, by man or whatever.

Same false conclusion. Our only observation is that things evolve.

And even there the concept as an imaginative speculation has no rational basis.

Again, yes it does. Man knows that he can create complexity (as in, build it); therefore, it's rational enough to suggest that Man was the result of creation. It's not rational to blindly believe that, but the idea itself is rational.

Although 3 and 4 are false, there is absolutely nothing there that would lead one to come to a conclusion of gods.

Not gods. But obviously, if you came to the conlusion of the possibility of creation, you have to come to the conclusion that there is higher life, which is what we call "gods". Higher life could mean anything though.

You should not be allowed to start a thread that isn't debatable.

It's very debatable.

Agreed. Look at some of his other threads and tell me he is not a troll.. Nobody could be that stupid.

Do you know what trolling is? What do you mean "that stupid"? What exactly is so stupid?

 

[Sarkus]

Yes. God is a rational idea. What is irrational is believing in God, because of the lack of objective evidence.

You confuse rational with logical.
"God" is a logical concept, sure... but rational? Not strictly, I'd say.

The "God" idea falls on Occam's Razor... it introduces an additional unnecessary "unknown" (God) compared to other logical ideas (eternal universe etc).


And also bear in mind that, as you say, all you are claiming is rational is the concept of a "cause" to the Universe - and not any of the characteristics of that cause.
One must also thus surely question the use of the term "God" in such discussion.
Such a term introduces, subconcsiously, too many preconceptions and ideas that it can only cloud the issue.

Ask yourself: what is the difference you see between the term "God" and "the cause of the Universe"?
Hopefully you will see that the latter strips out any anthropomorphisms, any preconceptions, any claim beyond the phrase itself. It doesn't look to be worshipped, praised or adored.

 

[DeepThought]

The complexity of man accumulated through a non-intelligent process of trial and error. So, you make the fundamental mistake of thinking complex things must come from a complex source.

The concept of a "non-intelligent process of trial and error" has risen from a complex source - the human mind.

It is completely nonsensical when considered outside of this context.

 

[(Q)]

Not gods. But obviously, if you came to the conlusion of the possibility of creation, you have to come to the conclusion that there is higher life, which is what we call "gods".

They don't lead to the conclusion of gods OR creation. And even if one did come to the conclusion of creation, that does not lead to the conclusion of a higher life.

These are all your own personal assertions based on... ? :shrug:

 

[Norsefire]

You confuse rational with logical.
"God" is a logical concept, sure... but rational? Not strictly, I'd say.

What is rational? In the grand scheme of things, Humanity is ignorant.

The "God" idea falls on Occam's Razor... it introduces an additional unnecessary "unknown" (God) compared to other logical ideas (eternal universe etc).

I always see atheists using "unnecessary" in regards to the concept of God; science does not deal with necessities. It's about finding the answer that is there, not the answer you want.

Ask yourself: what is the difference you see between the term "God" and "the cause of the Universe"?

Nothing, except God would be an intelligent cause to the universe.

Hopefully you will see that the latter strips out any anthropomorphisms, any preconceptions, any claim beyond the phrase itself. It doesn't look to be worshipped, praised or adored.

The latter is also what I mean entirely, except an intelligent cause to the universe. I never called for worship, praise, or adoration.

They don't lead to the conclusion of gods OR creation. And even if one did come to the conclusion of creation, that does not lead to the conclusion of a higher life.

These are all your own personal assertions based on... ?

Actually, again, we still have the possibility that we were created; and what else can create other than something which is intelligent? Higher life forms. This higher life is what we call gods.

 

[(Q)]

Actually, again, we still have the possibility that we were created; and what else can create other than something which is intelligent? Higher life forms. This higher life is what we call gods.

Actually, again, these are your own personal assertions, based on...?

You have yet to answer that question.

 

[Sarkus]

What is rational? In the grand scheme of things, Humanity is ignorant.

Rational is the simplest logical conclusion... as opposed to any other logical conclusion or an illogical one.

I always see atheists using "unnecessary" in regards to the concept of God; science does not deal with necessities. It's about finding the answer that is there, not the answer you want.

Firstly, don't confuse atheism with science.
Secondly, don't confuse rationality with science.
"God" / "first cause" has no place in science due to its inherent unfalsifiability.

Nothing, except God would be an intelligent cause to the universe.
The latter is also what I mean entirely, except an intelligent cause to the universe. I never called for worship, praise, or adoration.

But why, and more importantly how can you bring in the assign the attribute of "intelligent" to the "causation of the Universe"?
You do away with all other attributes, so why not "intelligence" for the same reason?

Actually, again, we still have the possibility that we were created; and what else can create other than something which is intelligent? Higher life forms. This higher life is what we call gods.

Ah, I see. Then you are confusing "creation" with "causation".

The Universe was possibly "caused". To claim it was "created" brings into it the implication of "creator" and "intelligence".

Yes, you say that we have the possibility that we were created (by an intelligence - so as to differentiate "create" and "cause"...) but this ranks alongside any other possibility for which there is zero evidence - and zero possible evidence.


You seem to accept 95% of the idea you're pushing, but fall short of fully accepting what it entails / means.

 

[Norsefire]

Rational is the simplest logical conclusion... as opposed to any other logical conclusion or an illogical one.

And as of now, we have absolutely no idea what the simplest logical conclusion is.

Firstly, don't confuse atheism with science.
Secondly, don't confuse rationality with science.
"God" / "first cause" has no place in science due to its inherent unfalsifiability.

Then neither does the big bang, string theory, dark matter, etc

Some of those have evidence, but it's circumstancial and hardly concrete, not to mention it's untestable and therefore, unprovable.

But why, and more importantly how can you bring in the assign the attribute of "intelligent" to the "causation of the Universe"?
You do away with all other attributes, so why not "intelligence" for the same reason?

It's about attributes of causation/change; only intelligence and nature are those attributes. What else causes change? Everything would either fall under intelligence or nature. Those are the broadest "forces".

The Universe was possibly "caused". To claim it was "created" brings into it the implication of "creator" and "intelligence".

Yes; and the causation would either be caused to be, naturally, or created. Do you see any other possibilities?

Yes, you say that we have the possibility that we were created (by an intelligence - so as to differentiate "create" and "cause"...) but this ranks alongside any other possibility for which there is zero evidence - and zero possible evidence.

However, this is a very real possibility since the origins of the universe remain unknown, and we know it either began naturally or was created

Regardless, that suggests, again, so many scientific "theories" are also on par with other things that have zero evidence.

You seem to accept 95% of the idea you're pushing, but fall short of fully accepting what it entails / means.

Why would I accept it fully without evidence? Right now, I'm acting on logic, figuring out the possibilities. Next, we need evidence.