is it possible to find God by reason?

[Lerxst]

True, we have no way of knowing about the details of god, if he exists. I was just trying to offer up a minimal definition, but I realize that that was even too descriptive.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

the idea of GODS mind comes in when we examine the symmetry of the cosmos...
it all does seem to follow clear patterns.... patterns which suggest planning..

even if it was nothing more than a mathmatical progression or wave aspect to the applied energy.. it still suggest planning.. before application.

-MT

 

[smallaxe0217]

You are still showing a lack of understanding of atheism - which is merely a lack of the belief in God.

I have NO belief - in either the existence or non-existence of God.

I require NO belief.

I guess my main comfort is knowing that I am, and that I have friends who, through evidence of continued observation, would most likely help in my time of need, as I feel I would help them in theirs. There is no "belief" here, no "faith".
Other than that, I don't know what gives me comfort - I just am comfortable in where I am, with who I am.

OK...

So if I'm not mistaken, you don't have an opinion either way in whether or not God exists, and you don't need any belief...

I still think that there is faith, in that you believe your friends "most likely" would help in your time of need. I hope that they would too...but if you don't want to call it faith, that's your call.

Peace.

 

[smallaxe0217]

I think there are plenty of people who don't have such a need to believe anything - in the sense of having some comprehensive worldview. They can get along fine without it.

That is true, but I think that a lot of times, that is because they have not really thought about it. I mean, not many people really think about the meaning of life, or even if there is any meaning...they are caught up in the here and now.

Personally I think I would be a happier person if I was religious. But I cannot *will* myself to make the leap of faith - I've tried. It just doesn't work for me (at this point in my life, at least).


I don't think we will ourselves to believe, I do think that we surrender to it...but maybe that is just me.

lalala

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: If god could be understood by reason, surely the majority of reasonable people would understand what god is, was, or should be. Unfortunately, during the course of human civilization, the idea of god still cannot be reasoned, but there is one very good reason why. God doesn't exist.

 

[smallaxe0217]

I dont thing geeser even suggested that, nobody can prove or disprove a gods existence, but you cant reason for one, this would be moot.

Nice to meet you too.

The topic of this thread was "Is it possible to find God through reason" and my response is the answer to that question.

you said "to me, reason can provide evidence for faith in God,and it can provide evidence for not having faith in God. It can also provide faith in atheism or faith in not following atheism, and it can provide evidence for anything you want to try and reason out."

thus what geeser was saying I think is your subjective reasoning could conjure up what ever reason you want to prove a god. but it would not make it so.

I have no intention of "proving" God's existence. Your reasoning leads you to believe God does not exist; my reasoning leads me to believe He does. Your belief doesn't make it so either.




I initially said "the basic question of how life began has only two possible answers to me: either it was created by a self-existent eternal life force, or it occured as a random event. One could say that one doesn't know how life begins; to me, that means that one doesn't want to make a decision between the two options. I believe that it is more reasonable to believe the first option instead of the second." to which you replied "dispite all the evidence to the contary." I ask you, What evidence are you speaking of?


ETHICS, have you read the bible.

Yes I have.


you said "Faith doesn't mean that we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that something will happen. If we prove something, then we don't have faith in it anymore because we KNOW that it is right; faith means that we believe it is right even though we can't prove it yet. We can provide mounds of evidence on one side or the other but evidence is not proof. All we can do is weigh the evidence and see for ourselve what we want to put our faith in."

the blue wording is the contradiction and well what evidence.


From dictionary.com

Evidence, noun.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Proof, noun.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
1. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
2. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
1. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
2. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

Thus, while evidence can lead to proof, evidence is not the same as proof.



I agree with geeser, this just prove he was agnostic, there is nothing to indicate he was anything else.


He said that he was very angry that "God did not exist". I always thought that meant that he was an atheist. At any rate, the information is there; draw your own conclusion.

I choose to not comment on the remainder of your post.

lala

 

[smallaxe0217]

Problem 1: Define God.

~Raithere

If God could be defined, then He would not be God. We only know of God what He has revealed to us.

 

[Sarkus]

OK...
So if I'm not mistaken, you don't have an opinion either way in whether or not God exists, and you don't need any belief...

I still think that there is faith, in that you believe your friends "most likely" would help in your time of need. I hope that they would too...but if you don't want to call it faith, that's your call.

This "faith", though, is based on years of observations - years of evidence - of my friend's actions, their personality etc.

So it is very different to the blind faith that religion requires regarding God, where there is no evidence.

 

[mis-t-highs]

If God could be defined, then He would not be God. We only know of God what He has revealed to us.

and what is that?

 

[audible]

I ask you, What evidence are you speaking of?

reality.

Yes I have.

but quite clearly with rose tinted glasses on, you need to get a clearer pair.

lala

and quite clearly it seems you are.

 

[cole grey]

Problem 1: Define God.

~Raithere

definition part 1 - creator of the cosmic order and disorder.

parts 2-1002 will be forthcoming... eventually.

P.S. I don't want to get hassled by someone saying there is no creator therefore my definition is not valid. My definition is still valid but someone can say that God as defined by me doesn't exist - they can say that, that is all.

 

[Lerxst]

*************
M*W: If god could be understood by reason, surely the majority of reasonable people would understand what god is, was, or should be. Unfortunately, during the course of human civilization, the idea of god still cannot be reasoned, but there is one very good reason why. God doesn't exist.

Or because god is above/outside our meager abilities to reason. That is just as good an explanation.

 

[geeser]

Or because god is above/outside our meager abilities to reason. That is just as good an explanation.

but why?
how is a sky daddy more sensible, that just infantile.

 

[c7ityi_]

*************
M*W: If god could be understood by reason, surely the majority of reasonable people would understand what god is, was, or should be. Unfortunately, during the course of human civilization, the idea of god still cannot be reasoned, but there is one very good reason why. God doesn't exist.

but i've already told you what "god" is.

 

[Lerxst]

but why?
how is a sky daddy more sensible, that just infantile.

I would not say it is more sensible. Depending on the type of god you posit, it might be much less sensible, indeed. And I think most ideas of god have been just that.

The point is, it is quite easy to see how their could be something god-like beyond our power to grasp. Given that, I don't see the merit of an out-of-hand rejection of the possibility of god. I certainly do not believe in god, but believe god is a possibility, and I hope, somewhat faintly, that there is one. Let's say I have just a sliver of hope.

 

[Raithere]

1) THE SOURCE OF APPLIED ENERGY IN CREATION.

-MT

No source of energy is needed. Energy is eternal; it can neither be created nor destroyed. If then the energy existent in the Universe is God, what need for an alternative label? God simply is the Universe.

A sentient being that created our reality/universe?

Does god then exist in a different reality/universe? If so, wouldn't that mean that there is no god in our reality/universe? What argument or evidence would indicate that the origin of our Universe is a sentient being?

If God could be defined, then He would not be God. We only know of God what He has revealed to us.

If God is indefinable then we're not talking about anything, "God" is just a symbol referencing nothing at all.

definition part 1 - creator of the cosmic order and disorder.

What do you mean by "cosmic order and disorder"?

Or because god is above/outside our meager abilities to reason. That is just as good an explanation.

How then can one found a logical argument for God?

~Raithere

 

[Lerxst]

Does god then exist in a different reality/universe? If so, wouldn't that mean that there is no god in our reality/universe? What argument or evidence would indicate that the origin of our Universe is a sentient being?

God could exist in a different reality/universe and could occasionally interact with ours. Certainly he could tweak various physical events in a way that is nondetectable by us in principle. For example, we know that the precise moment at which, say, a radioactive decay event will occur cannot be predicted exactly - only probabilities can be assigned. Perhaps the reason why a particular quantum event occured at 0.65283 seconds as opposed to some other time was because God willed it to occur at that time. As long as he follows the overall statistical distribution, he can be actively involved in the world without being detected - andany one little quantum event can have large repurcussions - the particular mutations that occured at any point during the chain of evolutionary history may not have been happenstance, for example. (That is just a speculation, I certainly do not believe in such a thing).

I can also come at this from a different angle. I can give you an example of a simple way in which there is a higher level of reality that contains at least one sentient being that would wield significant power over us and could not be detected unless he wanted us to detect him. This being would not likely possess the traits normally assigned to the Christian God, though - but he would still be quite god-like, according to some of our definitions. However he would likely be quite finite, limited in power, and perhaps even evil. Are you interested in seeing this example?

If God is indefinable then we're not talking about anything, "God" is just a symbol referencing nothing at all.

That might be the case. But I can certainly also imagine things that are so far beyond our comprehension that we don't even have language to discuss it - and that doesn't mean that those things cannot possibly be real.

Originally Posted by Lerxst
Or because god is above/outside our meager abilities to reason. That is just as good an explanation.

How then can one found a logical argument for God?

Well, I do not believe that there are any logical arguments that can demonstrate God. Not one. I do think there are various "plausibility" arguments that can cause one to say "ah yes, that scenario is possible, but we cannot confirm or disconfirm it." What you should then do about such scenarios is a personal choice. Rejecting such claims out-of-hand is preferred by some, and that is fine as a personal choice, but it is not necessarily going to get you any closer to the truth.

 

[SnakeLord]

If God could be defined, then He would not be God.

Why say "he"? Have you now not just defined god as being a male? Does that not then contradict your own statement that god can not be defined?

 

[cole grey]

What do you mean by "cosmic order and disorder"?

I mean the universe we know about. A lot of it looks like disorder.

 

[Raithere]

Perhaps the reason why a particular quantum event occured at 0.65283 seconds as opposed to some other time was because God willed it to occur at that time. As long as he follows the overall statistical distribution, he can be actively involved in the world without being detected - andany one little quantum event can have large repurcussions - the particular mutations that occured at any point during the chain of evolutionary history may not have been happenstance, for example. (That is just a speculation, I certainly do not believe in such a thing).

An interesting speculation. The problem I find is that if God's influence is undistinguishable from "natural" events, God's existence is irrelevant.
Epistemologically, this stance is agnostic so the answer to the topic would be, "No".

Are you interested in seeing this example?

Sure.

That might be the case. But I can certainly also imagine things that are so far beyond our comprehension that we don't even have language to discuss it - and that doesn't mean that those things cannot possibly be real.

As Tiassa's take on Anslem; That exists which is greater than can be imagined. I have no issue with this except there is no utility to the assertion. Once again the term "God" is rendered meaningless.

I find that god arguments tend to fall into one of two categories, either god is limited and is therefore not god or god is unlimited and thus irrelevant.

What you should then do about such scenarios is a personal choice. Rejecting such claims out-of-hand is preferred by some, and that is fine as a personal choice, but it is not necessarily going to get you any closer to the truth.

I tend towards pragmatism in such scenarios. Yes, my brain may be in a jar, but the assumption has no effect upon my experience. Thus the pragmatic assumption is that my experience is more or less congruent with reality. The alternative prohibits the foundation of any epistemological position... it's self-refuting.

~Raithere