Is God Rational?

[birch]

[video about child abuse removed by moderator, as off-topic]

for instance, what is the point of these scenarios in nature? what good is it? nothing but the dark doing it's thing as it always does.

let's not have any illusions or whitewash what this bs of 2/3 or 1/3 light or dark as if it's justifiable. there is no justification. it's like a warden locking you up in a cell with another prisoner that is going to rape and kill you.

let's not have any illusions that the demiurge or 'local' god is nothing other than an evil, perverted and callous being that plays with lives for it's own amusement.

 

[Michael 345]

let's not have any illusions that the demiurge or 'local' god is nothing other than an evil, perverted and callous being that plays with lives for it's own amusement.

god(s) don't exist (well not been shown to exist)

Don't anthropomorphise the universe

All people who rant against god, from this atheist view point, are ranting against Physics in the main, along with a hotch potch of society rules and regulations

Rules and regulations you maybe able to have some control over if you think the current ones are not"fair"

Physics you cannot alter - and no matter if it is 1 regulation or 10 million regulations you put in place to produce your version of fairness - 1/ none will change Physics 2/ various regulations will be broken

I would contend there are more law breakers outside of prison (I'm only taking jail-able crimes) than inside

Just as there are more road rules offenders than there are those who are caught and pay fines

Catch them ALL and fine them - national debt gone in a week

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

There is only one God, whether he exists or not, it is the one from the bible. Hindu, muslim and other religions/beliefs do not mention an entity called God, so the answer to your question is this: Malachi 3:6

Of course there is your problem...write it down once and it is set in stone...why?
If there was anything to this crazy god idea its definition surely would not be dictated by folk who lived over 2000 years ago and without out the benefit of stuff learned in the time between then and now.
Forget the passage why cant we have a new and better model..one mans writting is just that..the writting of one man...lets change it after all it makes less sence today than when first written.
I suppose back then to be able to write placed one way up there but now everyone can write pretty much so lets record some other views ... update please and get into modern times.
Alex

 

[mmatt9876]

I think the best way to test if God is rational is to test if religious texts and teachings that support the existence of God or support creation match up with science and logic.

 

[river]

God in the traditional sense , Abraham , Islam and Christian faiths has never been " rational " .

The forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge , the flood that god knew would come .

This god is political not rational . This god wants power over us , rather than helping us .

 

[Musika]

I think the best way to test if God is rational is to test if religious texts and teachings that support the existence of God or support creation match up with science and logic.

On what grounds is it logical to bring empiricisim (if that is what you mean by science) to the field of cosmogyny as a barometer of logic?

The gripe that atheists tend to have with religious texts is that they believe they are just made up with (at best) vague but completely unfalsifiable references to the phenomenal world. When you start venturing into scientific ideas of ultimate causes, you find literature that is obedient to the exact same definition.

 

[river]

On what grounds is it logical to bring empiricisim (if that is what you mean by science) to the field of cosmogyny as a barometer of logic?

The gripe that atheists tend to have with religious texts is that they believe they are just made up with (at best) vague but completely unfalsifiable references to the phenomenal world. When you start venturing into scientific ideas of ultimate causes, you find literature that is obedient to the exact same definition.

You don't need science to back up the irrationalality of god .

The irrationalality of god comes from this gods actions .

 

[mmatt9876]

On what grounds is it logical to bring empiricisim (if that is what you mean by science) to the field of cosmogyny as a barometer of logic?

The gripe that atheists tend to have with religious texts is that they believe they are just made up with (at best) vague but completely unfalsifiable references to the phenomenal world. When you start venturing into scientific ideas of ultimate causes, you find literature that is obedient to the exact same definition.

Science is based on evidence and facts. Logic is reasoning based on evidence and facts. I believe they can go hand in hand sometimes. I believe you can base logical reasoning on science as long as the evidence and facts behind that science is well accepted and supported. Science is not always absolutely certain but the science that is well accepted and supported is worth considering.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Science is based on evidence and facts.

And science evolves, it explains the universe using facts evidence and observation without just making stuff up...and science is not frightened by change whereas the bible and the whole made up God story cant move on remaini g stuck in the quick sand of ignorance and gullibility ...and so the bible still tells readers how to manage slaves, it still tells readers to kill their neighbour if you catch him working on a Sunday, and tells the reader to stone a variety of people for various sins .. and thank goodness their cherry picking philosophy allows them to ignore such barbaric demands, although it does raise the inconvenient question as to why they fail to follow the word of God.


Will failing to kill your neighbour when he mows his lawn on Sunday give you a one way ticket to hell?

If theists like made up stuff why not make up some new stuff consistent with the modern era?..

Why not?...oh cant change the word of God...

Well you can fix it a little... its a simple edit ...cut out some of the bad made up stuff and replace it with new made up stuff.

Beats killing your neighbour.

I read some statistics on religion and it seems 20% of those in the USA take the bible literally...Adam and Eve the flood the fairey tales ....heck, when babies are born in US do they routinely drop them on their heads? Is it lead in the water supply?

Well God is made up by humans and as has been observed above the made up notion reflects the irrationality of those who made him up.

The continued acceptance of a book hopelessly out of touch calling routinely for readers to murder folk reflects the irrationality of those who should know better.


Alex

 

[mmatt9876]

And science evolves, it explains the universe using facts evidence and observation without just making stuff up...and science is not frightened by change whereas the bible and the whole made up God story cant move on remaini g stuck in the quick sand of ignorance and gullibility ...and so the bible still tells readers how to manage slaves, it still tells readers to kill their neighbour if you catch him working on a Sunday, and tells the reader to stone a variety of people for various sins .. and thank goodness their cherry picking philosophy allows them to ignore such barbaric demands, although it does raise the inconvenient question as to why they fail to follow the word of God.


Will failing to kill your neighbour when he mows his lawn on Sunday give you a one way ticket to hell?

If theists like made up stuff why not make up some new stuff consistent with the modern era?..

Why not?...oh cant change the word of God...

Well you can fix it a little... its a simple edit ...cut out some of the bad made up stuff and replace it with new made up stuff.

Beats killing your neighbour.

I read some statistics on religion and it seems 20% of those in the USA take the bible literally...Adam and Eve the flood the fairey tales ....heck, when babies are born in US do they routinely drop them on their heads? Is it lead in the water supply?

Well God is made up by humans and as has been observed above the made up notion reflects the irrationality of those who made him up.

The continued acceptance of a book hopelessly out of touch calling routinely for readers to murder folk reflects the irrationality of those who should know better.


Alex

A lot of religious beliefs and stories sound silly today. I think it is fine to be spiritual or religious as long as you do not let your religious beliefs go too far.

 

[mmatt9876]

Personally I am a Roman Catholic but I do not push my beliefs on others. If I think or find out someone else that I meet is Christian I may share about God or Jesus but otherwise I do not often share about my beliefs with other people. I am not a perfect Roman Catholic and I pick and choose what I believe or do. I kind of worship God in my own way.

 

[Musika]

Science is based on evidence and facts. Logic is reasoning based on evidence and facts. I believe they can go hand in hand sometimes. I believe you can base logical reasoning on science as long as the evidence and facts behind that science is well accepted and supported. Science is not always absolutely certain but the science that is well accepted and supported is worth considering.

The problem is that the more one is relying on science to approach cosmogyny (or other subjects at the top end of ontology), the more one is moving away from that sort of well evidenced and logical science. IOW, if one wants to talk of logic, there is the question of what value there is in bringing empiricism (which has obvious limitations) to such problems.

Yazata, even though an atheist himself, touched on this subject in a different thread, but it went right over the heads of his peers.

 

[mmatt9876]

The problem is that the more one is relying on science to approach cosmogyny (or other subjects at the top end of ontology), the more one is moving away from that sort of well evidenced and logical science. IOW, if one wants to talk of logic, there is the question of what value there is in bringing empiricism (which has obvious limitations) to such problems.

Yazata, even though an atheist himself, touched on this subject in a different thread, but it went right over the heads of his peers.

I guess all we have to work with when creating scientific ideas are our senses, our logic, and our imaginations. When we do not have the facts and numbers concerning testing different problems scientifically it is hard to apply logic to those problems to come to a truly scientific answer considering logic is based on validity.

 

[spidergoat]

On what grounds is it logical to bring empiricisim (if that is what you mean by science) to the field of cosmogyny as a barometer of logic?

The gripe that atheists tend to have with religious texts is that they believe they are just made up with (at best) vague but completely unfalsifiable references to the phenomenal world. When you start venturing into scientific ideas of ultimate causes, you find literature that is obedient to the exact same definition.

Then reject both ideas. Science doesn't claim to know there is an ultimate cause. When you claim something, shouldn't you be able to defend the claim with evidence?

 

[Musika]

Then reject both ideas. Science doesn't claim to know there is an ultimate cause.

Cause was actually a plural ... causes ... and, there are plenty of cases of people using science in a manner to punch above its empirical paycheck.

 

[spidergoat]

Cause was actually a plural ... causes ... and, there are plenty of cases of people using science in a manner to punch above its empirical paycheck.

So what? People can be mistaken. Empiricism proves itself every day.

 

[Musika]

So what? People can be mistaken. Empiricism proves itself every day.

Technically we are not even talking about empuricism. We are talking about borrowing from the credibility of empiricism in an attempt to solve questions outside of its jurisdiction.

 

[spidergoat]

Technically we are not even talking about empuricism. We are talking about borrowing from the credibility of empiricism in an attempt to solve questions outside of its jurisdiction.

It's jurisdiction? You mean reality?

 

[Musika]

It's jurisdiction? You mean reality?

If you think empiricism is synonymous with reality you will have difficulty even understanding the relationship between terms like epistemology and ontology, .... much less discussions that examine particular strengths and weaknesses within that relationship.

 

[spidergoat]

Well then, it's good that I don't think it's synonymous with reality.