"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

[Tiberius]

Ha ha ha. How could I prove ANYTHING in this world. Even the "proofs" of science are open to dispute.
Maybe even mathematical proofs could be undone, who knows.

either

1 - the universe "began" which means it didn't exist prior to beginning
or
2 - the universe was always here, which doesn't answer the question of how it began.

there are many who love to ridicule people's faith and speak of the "God of the gaps"
but this beginning is something which most skeptics shy away from - the God of the
ultimate beginning, before there were even physical laws.

How do you figure that the universe needs an explanation for how it began if it was always here? If it was always here, then it never had a beginning and thus needs no explanation for one!

 

[PruePhillip]

How do you figure that the universe needs an explanation for how it began if it was always here? If it was always here, then it never had a beginning and thus needs no explanation for one!

It's a common argument. But I think it's a fudge. A universe which has always been here makes no sense.
That explains nothing.
In any case the recycling universe has gone out of favor.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well the obvious answer to this is - we don't know - so why invent some entity (call it God or whatever) and then attribute to such whatever one wants by whatever means? Especially when we might never have such an answer and the problems then created are of our own making.

The Big Fudge is that the common man thinks science "knows" all the answers.
I do like it when Cosmologists admit as much.
But again... the universe did not create itself for no reason when it did not exist.
That's unscientific - magic in fact.

 

[DW79]

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."

It is a "winner" sentence( written by our friend @HonestJoe in his post #104 ) . I appreciate it.
Does one agree with the sentence colored in magenta above?
If not, why not, please?

Regards

I would say its more a case of not believing in God makes a person irrational if anything

 

[Mock Turtle]

The Big Fudge is that the common man thinks science "knows" all the answers.
I do like it when Cosmologists admit as much.
But again... the universe did not create itself for no reason when it did not exist.
That's unscientific - magic in fact.

Well I might be quite common but I don't see science as providing all the answers, just most of them relevant to us mortals. Postulating whatever because we don't actually understand is about as useful as most irrational beliefs - much like magic. Why not just admit we don't know - even if science seems to point in one direction.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would say its more a case of not believing in God makes a person irrational if anything

Now which god would that be?

 

[DW79]

Now which god would that be?

The Creator

 

[Tiberius]

It's a common argument. But I think it's a fudge. A universe which has always been here makes no sense.
That explains nothing.
In any case the recycling universe has gone out of favor.

A God who has always been here makes just as much sense.

 

[PruePhillip]

A God who has always been here makes just as much sense.

God isn't "here"
If God created the universe [which implies there's a reason] then God is outside
this universe. We can't address "Who made God" because we can't comprehend
what this realm is like. Scientists say it doesn't exist at all but that's not good science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The Creator

You mean the one worshipped by every religion? Not sure S/He shape-shifts to accommodate all such.

 

[DW79]

You mean the one worshipped by every religion? Not sure S/He shape-shifts to accommodate all such.

I mean I don't assume a house isn't built just because I don't know who built it. I would consider that irrational. Wouldn't you?

 

[paarsurrey]

God isn't "here"
If God created the universe [which implies there's a reason] then God is outside
this universe. We can't address "Who made God" because we can't comprehend
what this realm is like. Scientists say it doesn't exist at all but that's not good science.

G-d is here with His attributes.
The rest of one's post I agree with one.

Regards

 

[Mock Turtle]

I mean I don't assume a house isn't built just because I don't know who built it. I would consider that irrational. Wouldn't you?

That's hardly the point. Many believe in the one god but some religions don't or don't even believe in any gods. You are just accounting for the monotheistic religions and assuming that this is the correct belief system, even allowing for all the conflicting and possibly contradictory beliefs that have the one God concept.

 

[DW79]

That's hardly the point. Many believe in the one god but some religions don't or don't even believe in any gods. You are just accounting for the monotheistic religions and assuming that this is the correct belief system, even allowing for all the conflicting and possibly contradictory beliefs that have the one God concept.

It is the point your convoluting. "Which God?"(a question) With a Creator we call God.

These are two separate issues

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is the point your convoluting. "Which God?"(a question) With a Creator we call God.

These are two separate issues

So the creator can morph into as many gods required? You are just settling on one explanation - god the (one) creator - and then possibly jumping to some particular religion from that - which ever one takes your fancy. Or are you free of religious belief but believe in god the creator and that's it?

 

[DW79]

So the creator can morph into as many gods required? You are just settling on one explanation - god the (one) creator - and then possibly jumping to some particular religion from that - which ever one takes your fancy. Or are you free of religious belief but believe in god the creator and that's it?

Who are what the creator is can be settled once we accept that there is a creator. We possess the observational and reasoning skills in order to do this.

 

[Milton Platt]

One cannot see G-d with the naked eyes in this world. Eyes see the material and physical things. G-d is attributive so He is known with the reflection of His attributes. Right, please?

Regards

That is merely trying to define something into existence. That does not work.
The attributes of a Unicorn are:
1. They are invisible.
2. They exist outside of space and time
3. They created the universe
4. Unicorns therefore exist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Who are what the creator is can be settled once we accept that there is a creator. We possess the observational and reasoning skills in order to do this.

For you maybe. I don't accept the various 'proofs' for such - admitting that I might never know, and relying on others who might have better knowledge than myself or have better abilities is less than satisfactory. For me, the whole issue is troublesome in that it appears to have split humanity rather than uniting it, and hence something to be left alone. There might be a creator and there might not be - hardly affects me. What does affect me is what follows from some doing so - all the various issues resulting from the various religious beliefs.

 

[Muffled]

Perhaps you are just choosy about the evidence - not that I don't think it is irrational believing in God. It's just as rational to believe either thing.

I believe it is irrational to say there is no God when the evidence says otherwise.

 

[Muffled]

That is merely trying to define something into existence. That does not work.
The attributes of a Unicorn are:
1. They are invisible.
2. They exist outside of space and time
3. They created the universe
4. Unicorns therefore exist.

I believe the opposite is also the case. Attributes are not proof that something does not exist. The analogy that Jesus used is wind. The wind can't be seen but we know its attributes and in fact it does exist.