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

[Mock Turtle]

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

Well your evidence (perhaps being selective) doesn't convince many of us.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Isn't it beating about the bush, please?
Were unicorns under discussion here, please?
Please don't make any political assertions to cover the failings of non-belief. Right,please?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Isn't it beating about the bush, please?
Were unicorns under discussion here, please?
Please don't make any political assertions to cover the failings of non-belief. Right,please?

Regards

no, it is right to the point. I used an identical process to define a unicorn into existence. If it does not work for the Unicorn, then it cannot work for a god. Just like your god, I can make a series of untestable claims and declare that this is a Unicorn, therefore they exist.
The point you seem unable to understand is that just defining a word does nothing to establish whether the thing being defined exists.

 

[DW79]

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.

Then why ask questions about what you don't want to know? This is irrational

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

we can weigh air. We can scientifically discern it’s components and the ratio of each. We can do experiments to show air occupies space. We can move the air molecules and create wind ourselves and we clearly understand what causes wind (movement of air molecules). Jesus was apparently unaware of this.

I did not say, nor even imply that attributes proved something does not exist. That is a shifting of the burden of proof.

I listed in another post the attributes of a Unicorn. Do they now exist?

My point is that giving a definition of something does not demonstrate it exists. Especially when the list of attributes are untestable, hence unverifiable.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Then why ask questions about what you don't want to know? This is irrational

You were the one claiming it is irrational to not believe in God. I think it is equally rational to believe either thing - and my preference is not to ask such a question because I have seen where it leads - often to dogmatic beliefs such as you might have. Not religious?

 

[DW79]

no, it is right to the point. I used an identical process to define a unicorn into existence. If it does not work for the Unicorn, then it cannot work for a god. Just like your god, I can make a series of untestable claims and declare that this is a Unicorn, therefore they exist.
The point you seem unable to understand is that just defining a word does nothing to establish whether the thing being defined exists.

You can take Unicorns away and still have to answer for the reality of our universe. So its not an identical process.

The reality of our universe must have an answer God is that answer. There is no other nor will you find one because it is the answer. That is how it has come to be in our universe the answer to the question

 

[DW79]

You were the one claiming it is irrational to not believe in God. I think it is equally rational to believe either thing - and my preference is not to ask such a question because I have seen where it leads - often to dogmatic beliefs such as you might have. Not religious?

It is irrational to not believe in God. Because it goes against everything we view as rational. Observation would be one of those things. Observation that things are made and only life brings life. All else is irrational.

 

[Milton Platt]

You can take Unicorns away and still have to answer for the reality of our universe. So its not an identical process.

The reality of our universe must have an answer God is that answer. There is no other nor will you find one because it is the answer. That is how it has come to be in our universe the answer to the question

The reality of the universe does have an answer. For us right now, the answer is “We don’t know”.
If you have sound evidence for inserting a god into a blank space in our knowledge, please present it. Apologists have been trying to do so for thousands of years and have failed so far. You will not only be one up on them all, but could conceivably end up with a Nobel prize.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is irrational to not believe in God. Because it goes against everything we view as rational. Observation would be one of those things. Observation that things are made and only life brings life. All else is irrational.

In your view. You'll have to prove this before I get to believe it, and science still hasn't come to a conclusion as to how exactly life originated, although no doubt you will just dismiss the science that you don't like (but accept that which you do) - as many here seem to do. What is rational about life on Earth - and apparently being so precious to some god - with trillions of other stars and planets apparently in existence? Perhaps your observation is rather limited, and selective?

 

[DW79]

The reality of the universe does have an answer. For us right now, the answer is “We don’t know”.
If you have sound evidence for inserting a god into a blank space in our knowledge, please present it. Apologists have been trying to do so for thousands of years and have failed so far. You will not only be one up on them all, but could conceivably end up with a Nobel prize.

We don't know is not an answer. It presupposes to speak for everyone who exists and ever did exist. You will never find an answer for a presupposition like this and its a question that must have answer

 

[DW79]

In your view. You'll have to prove this before I get to believe it, and science still hasn't come to a conclusion as to how exactly life originated, although no doubt you will just dismiss the science that you don't like (but accept that which you do) - as many here seem to do. What is rational about life on Earth - and apparently being so precious to some god - with trillions of other stars and planets apparently in existence? Perhaps your observation is rather limited, and selective?

Your saying I need to prove its irrational to believe against the laws of observation?

 

[Tiberius]

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.

If God is outside the universe, what was he doing running around INSIDE the universe in the Bible?

And on what basis do you claim that it's not good science? Because it disagrees with what you;ve chosen to believe?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Your saying I need to prove its irrational to believe against the laws of observation?

Depends upon the conclusion that comes from observing - and the evidence that you would cite to be observed. I think we have had the 'just right' view of life often expounded by the JWs here. Going for that approach - and ignoring all the rest?

 

[DW79]

Depends upon the conclusion that comes from observing - and the evidence that you would cite to be observed. I think we have had the 'just right' view of life often expounded by the JWs here. Going for that approach - and ignoring all the rest?

OK. life comes from life and nothing just comes into existence. Its made by someone. How about these two laws of observation?

 

[paarsurrey]

OK. life comes from life and nothing just comes into existence. Its made by someone. How about these two laws of observation?

I agree with one here.

Regards

 

[Tiberius]

OK. life comes from life and nothing just comes into existence. Its made by someone. How about these two laws of observation?

Therefore God was made by someone.

 

[Mock Turtle]

OK. life comes from life and nothing just comes into existence. Its made by someone. How about these two laws of observation?

So you believe in evolution at least presumably. Myself, like most including the scientists, don't know how life originated - on Earth or elsewhere, since it is possible that life did arrive from some other place. But it might just have sprung into existence at the cell level - and if we can prove such then your proposal possibly evaporates.

How about this for an observation. Some centuries ago we hardly knew about disease vectors - we had no means of observing bacteria or viruses (imaged quite recently actually), and we had no means of observing the multitude of galaxies, the stars in them, and the planets that seem so plentiful around such stars (this last only known in the last few decades).

Going back a few millennia, we hardly knew about the various function of the human body in any accurate manner. Not much true observing going on then.

Go back several hundred thousand years and we acted more like our primate cousins than humans, with token use of tools that we might have used then.

Go back many millions of years and we have the continents in different positions and plate tectonics at work - still is happening.

And so on.

Would an observer alive at any point discussed (perhaps coming from some far off civilisation) have a different view at each point? Some seem to think that what we observe now is the way it should be, being not just the product of time, and is what has been 'designed' by some creator. Seems a long-winded process for us to be at the pinnacle - and assuming that all such was created for our benefit.

That is my observation, that we should look at all the appropriate evidence available to us, and which has been missing for much of our existence as a species, and certainly so when the major religions formed.

 

[PruePhillip]

If God is outside the universe, what was he doing running around INSIDE the universe in the Bible?

And on what basis do you claim that it's not good science? Because it disagrees with what you;ve chosen to believe?

I don't have the technical details of how God operates outside and inside of His own creation.
God's dealings aren't just in "bible times" because in a sense YOU are living in bible times -
the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland, a "second time" was promised to them
millennium ago. And the very thought of Jews returning to their ancient land was ridiculed
in the 19th Century. It's like some Babylonians going home to rebuild their land inside of
modern Iraq.

 

[PruePhillip]

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

You cannot make ANY sense of a realm outside of the whole universe.
You can stand on the north pole and tell someone to go north - that's
how scientists treat the idea of something outside of the universe.