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

[Tiberius]

Yeah, but tell me which one is rational in your examples. In these cases what is rational or not changes based on subjectivity.

Regards
Mikkel

I think you need to try to comprehend my post a bit better. I am saying that new information can change what you consider to be rational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you need to try to comprehend my post a bit better. I am saying that new information can change what you consider to be rational.

Okay, so rationality is relative to what you consider relevant in regards to morality.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of that helps God, however.

Sorry for the late answer.
No, it doesn't help in the positive as such. It just means that the strong version of naturalism, as philosophical naturalism don't work. There is a reason for methodological naturalism.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, so rationality is relative to what you consider relevant in regards to morality.

Regards
Mikkel

Why are we talking about morality at all? This is a discussion about RATIONALITY. If you can't keep to the topic, what are you doing in here? If you insist on talking about morality, how about you go and start a new thread?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why are we talking about morality at all? This is a discussion about RATIONALITY. If you can't keep to the topic, what are you doing in here? If you insist on talking about morality, how about you go and start a new thread?

Good to know that morality has nothing to do with rationality.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

Sorry for the late answer.
No, it doesn't help in the positive as such. It just means that the strong version of naturalism, as philosophical naturalism don't work. There is a reason for methodological naturalism.

Yes, that's fair enough in context.

However, the statement "No objective test can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary" is accurate.

So is the statement, "There is no coherent concept of 'godness', the quality that a real god would have and that no other real being, however wise, knowledgeable or powerful, would have."

And so on.

 

[Tiberius]

Good to know that morality has nothing to do with rationality.

Regards
Mikkel

Stop trying to muddy the waters please.

Your definition of rational doesn't take into account that a person's most rational decision can be influenced by how much information they have, and that the information they have can alter over time.

 

[paarsurrey]

"God of the gaps" is a rather clever term. People use this ever shrinking God to
"explain" things which appear unexplainable. But that's got nothing to do with the
God of the bible.
There's a "natural" explanation for just about everything in the universe (with the
exception of weird things like the Near Death Experience etc..)

But how can a universe create itself when it doesn't exist? And for what reason?
We are forced to go outside of the universe for answers to this. And these answers
are not going to come from science.

"But how can a universe create itself when it doesn't exist? And for what reason?
We are forced to go outside of the universe for answers to this. And these answers are not going to come from science."

Good and reasonable questions.
It is for this that believing in G-d is most rational/reasonable. And further there is no other reasonable claimant of having created the universe/s except G-d. Right,please?

Regards

 

[Tiberius]

"But how can a universe create itself when it doesn't exist? And for what reason?
We are forced to go outside of the universe for answers to this. And these answers are not going to come from science."

Good and reasonable questions.
It is for this that believing in G-d is most rational/reasonable. And further there is no other reasonable claimant of having created the universe/s except G-d. Right,please?

Regards

But how can a god create itself when it doesn't exist? And for what reason?
We are forced to go outside of god for answers to this. And these answers are not going to come from religion.

Alas, this doesn't actually answer anything. It just pushes the problem back a little so we can pretend we don't have to answer it.

 

[PruePhillip]

But how can a god create itself when it doesn't exist? And for what reason?
We are forced to go outside of god for answers to this. And these answers are not going to come from religion.

Alas, this doesn't actually answer anything. It just pushes the problem back a little so we can pretend we don't have to answer it.

It's correct to say that science pushes further back. I am sure there's mechanisms which
explain the Big Bang (BB), and a mechanism which describes this mechanism. Turtles all the
way down so to speak.

But this doesn't work for any "god" OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE.

Scientists say there cannot be anything "outside" of the universe. There cannot be time
before because time was created in the BB. Conceptually "before" the universe was born
is as silly as asking what is north of north. There was no time, energy, space, physical
laws, mathematics and logic.
N.o.t.h.i.n.g.
So asking the question "who made God" makes as much sense as asking what lies
outside of everything there is.

 

[Tiberius]

It's correct to say that science pushes further back. I am sure there's mechanisms which
explain the Big Bang (BB), and a mechanism which describes this mechanism. Turtles all the
way down so to speak.

But this doesn't work for any "god" OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE.

Scientists say there cannot be anything "outside" of the universe. There cannot be time
before because time was created in the BB. Conceptually "before" the universe was born
is as silly as asking what is north of north. There was no time, energy, space, physical
laws, mathematics and logic.
N.o.t.h.i.n.g.
So asking the question "who made God" makes as much sense as asking what lies
outside of everything there is.

Actually, science just says that anything "before" the Big Bang is unknowable, and that was the point at which the universe as we know it formed. There could have been something "before" then, we just can't know about it. It's like how I can take a metal statue of a cat, then melt it down and make a metal statue of an elephant. There's no way you can look at the elephant and learn it was a cat before. You may be able to study the elephant statue very carefully and piece together the history of the elephant statue ever since it was created, but the fact it was melted down completely erased any evidence of what happened before. A similar thing may be happening with our universe. So we can't say that the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang, we can only say that it didn't exist in any way we can detect before the Big Bang.

In any case, why do you claim that this pushing back doesn't work for God?

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually, science just says that anything "before" the Big Bang is unknowable, and that was the point at which the universe as we know it formed. There could have been something "before" then, we just can't know about it. It's like how I can take a metal statue of a cat, then melt it down and make a metal statue of an elephant. There's no way you can look at the elephant and learn it was a cat before. You may be able to study the elephant statue very carefully and piece together the history of the elephant statue ever since it was created, but the fact it was melted down completely erased any evidence of what happened before. A similar thing may be happening with our universe. So we can't say that the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang, we can only say that it didn't exist in any way we can detect before the Big Bang.

In any case, why do you claim that this pushing back doesn't work for God?

Because we are asking questions about something that is unknowable, and by scientific
definition or logic testing, does not exist.
A recycled universe existed, just like your metal cat - but there can't be anything beyond
the metal of the cat, the atoms, the physical laws and all that is required to make a cat in
the first place. Into this unknown which science says doesn't "exist" must be God because
a universe which doesn't exist cannot make itself.

 

[Tiberius]

Because we are asking questions about something that is unknowable, and by scientific
definition or logic testing, does not exist.
A recycled universe existed, just like your metal cat - but there can't be anything beyond
the metal of the cat, the atoms, the physical laws and all that is required to make a cat in
the first place. Into this unknown which science says doesn't "exist" must be God because
a universe which doesn't exist cannot make itself.

I think you are extending the analogy too far.

I was pointing out that the Big Bang is like melting down the cat statue. It removes any evidence of the pre-melting state, just how the Big Bang removes any evidence of the pre Big Bang state.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think you are extending the analogy too far.

I was pointing out that the Big Bang is like melting down the cat statue. It removes any evidence of the pre-melting state, just how the Big Bang removes any evidence of the pre Big Bang state.

I understand. This is the recycled universe - Big Bang, expansion, contraction, singularity, Big Bang again.
There's two ideas - either the universe had a beginning or it's endlessly recycling. I feel the latter is a fudge
and still doesn't explain how something "started."

 

[Muffled]

I believe people who think believing in God is irrational are irrational.

 

[Muffled]

Believing in anything without sufficient supporting evidence is irrational, not just a god belief.

I believe that believing in God has sufficient evidence. It is the people who discount the evidence who are being irrational.

 

[Muffled]

Of course it's true. I find when I have questions about what to do and I pray; then after I pray I often have a rational answer. That is my mind becomes more logical, more rational and suddenly I have my answer based on reason.

I believe God says: Let us reason together. He doesn't say let me see how much I can lie to you or confuse you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe that believing in God has sufficient evidence. It is the people who discount the evidence who are being irrational.

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.

 

[74x12]

I believe God says: Let us reason together. He doesn't say let me see how much I can lie to you or confuse you.

Perfect verse ... Thanks.

 

[Tiberius]

I understand. This is the recycled universe - Big Bang, expansion, contraction, singularity, Big Bang again.
There's two ideas - either the universe had a beginning or it's endlessly recycling. I feel the latter is a fudge
and still doesn't explain how something "started."

The claim that God doesn't need a creator is also a "fudge" as far as I'm concerned.