Logically, agnosticism is the most rational position

[Skwim]

Logical argument and rational debate are the first steps to knowing God but once one comes to a spiritual perception of His Reality there is no need for logical proofs anymore as it becomes abundantly clear there is God.

Curious as to the nature of such logical arguments and rational debates that they would lead one to a pro-god position. All the truly logical arguments and rational debates I've seen have led to just the opposite, and following such lack of affirmation it's only because of a need driven leap of faith that one ends up concluding god exists. And just what is a "spiritual perception," and where does it derive its validity?


.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Curious as to the nature of such logical arguments and rational debates that they would lead one to a pro-god position. All the truly logical arguments and rational debates I've seen have led to just the opposite, and following such lack of affirmation it's only because of a need driven leap of faith that one ends up concluding god exists. And just what is a "spiritual perception," and where does it derive its validity?


.

The Words of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha can be most helpful.

 

[Skwim]

The Words of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha can be most helpful.

Yeah, I was pretty sure it was all a lot of hot air and you wouldn't be able to provide a straight answer. Thanks for not disappointing.


.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yeah, I was pretty sure it was all a lot of hot air and you wouldn't be able to provide a straight answer. Thanks for not disappointing.


.

We are spiritual beings not just animals. We have a higher nature that can understand things which are not tangible therefore we can know God exists.

I also thought the same as you but after careful study and research I am in no doubt whatsoever of the existence of God.

Ask me any question and I will try to answer it but if you have already made up your mind then how do you expect to learn?

A closed mind learns nothing. We should be willing to test concepts but preconceived ideas close ones eyes to any truth one may find.

If I say the world is flat and decide no matter what people say I'm not budging then I can't learn anything else. I opened my mind which is how I found out that God most definitely exists. You've got it all wrong.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We are spiritual beings not just animals. We have a higher nature that can understand things which are not tangible therefore we can know God exists.

I also thought the same as you but after careful study and research I am in no doubt whatsoever of the existence of God.

Ask me any question and I will try to answer it but if you have already made up your mind then how do you expect to learn?

A closed mind learns nothing. We should be willing to test concepts but preconceived ideas close ones eyes to any truth one may find.

If I say the world is flat and decide no matter what people say I'm not budging then I can't learn anything else. I opened my mind which is how I found out that God most definitely exists. You've got it all wrong.

So what about people who perceive multiple deities? Have they got it all wrong too? For that matter, why should they hold your experience as more valid than theirs?

 

[loverofhumanity]

No. People should follow what their hearts, minds, souls or gut tells them. If a person believes in multiple deities then that is the result of their search and is truth for them and we must respect that. My experience is only valid for myself not others. Everyone has a mind to think for him or herself. At best we can share our experiences and understandings but I can't say I am right and you are wrong. So although I have come to a firm conclusion there is only one God, that is only my conclusion for myself. Their experience for them is just as equally valid as mine is for me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless they're sincere.

If they're sincere, they believe that those other potential gods don't exist in reality. "Only" suggests being able to conceive of more than one.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In terms of beliefs about the supernatural and God, agnosticism seems to be the most rational positions to hold compared to atheism and theism. I am the kind of agnostic where I don't know if God exists, and I don't even know how I would attempt to calculate a probability for God's existence, let alone actually give a probability.

I think the atheistic claim that God is unlikely seems to be an impossible claim. There are way too many possibilities and factors that would be required to actually determine God to be unlikely. Furthermore, theism is equally illogical since it claims that either God's existence is likely, or certain.

I would argue that nobody has anywhere close to enough information that would enable them to formally, or even informally, determine the likelihood of God's existence. Even visions or feelings that people have aren't anywhere near conclusive enough. Visions and feelings could be delusions, or an alien experiment, or a fake deity tricking you such as Satan, or some kind of hallucination, or just wishful thinking. These feelings or visions can't be used to know if God is real due to the unreliability and unverifiability of feelings and visions, especially considering feelings and visions tend to confirm a variety of beliefs that are often mutually exclusive. Anyways, it seems to me that if people were trying to be as logical as possible, they should be agnostics as i've defined them (not knowing the probability of God's existence and not knowing if its possible to get such a probability).

If its an example of complete neutrality and indifference, I can agree.

Otherwise Athiesm would definitely be the more logical/rational position.

Being open to a possibility would indicate there is actually something already there that brings one to even think that it's possible. I don't agree with that form of agnosticism.

 

[Willamena]

If they're sincere, they believe that those other potential gods don't exist in reality. "Only" suggests being able to conceive of more than one.

If only "only" could only mean only... then there'd be no other potential meanings for it.

 

[McBell]

If only "only" could only mean only... then there'd be no other potential meanings for it.

Kinda sucks when words have more than one meaning.
Especially when one wants to exclude all meanings of the word that hurt their claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If only "only" could only mean only... then there'd be no other potential meanings for it.

If you have to specify "only", then there's room in your worldview for others.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. A couple of posts earlier I posted scientific proofs as well as logical proofs. Did you see the links? They are two different papers.

Worth a look

Here's one link to the logical proofs which begin on page 4

http://wilmetteinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BAHAI-Bahai-Proofs-of-God-1.pdf

And here is the scientific proofs. You have to scroll down past the French there's more there.

https://bahai-studies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5.4-Hatcher.pdf

I'll try to take these one by one.

Prime mover argument:
This is based on the assumption that existence being infinite would be manifestly absurd, which I agree with. If we go back step by step we must eventually reach a starting point or else we would never have reached our present moment. But there is a contradiction that the author tries to skirt merely by mentioning it, saying that God is not a thing like other things. This takes the concept out of logical discussion. It is logically fallacious to claim that God is excused from this contradiction without providing the specific explanation for that exemption. If God is not a thing, what is God that allows him to be infinite when infinity is "manifestly absurd". It is the same logical fallacy that is contained in the "unmoved mover" argument.

 

[Willamena]

Kinda sucks when words have more than one meaning.
Especially when one wants to exclude all meanings of the word that hurt their claim.

Or that matter.

 

[Willamena]

If you have to specify "only", then there's room in your worldview for others.

And if there's only one way to specify it.... then what?

I think you're wrong about "only" allowing for possibilities. I think "only" excludes possibilities.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'll try to take these one by one.

Prime mover argument:
This is based on the assumption that existence being infinite would be manifestly absurd, which I agree with. If we go back step by step we must eventually reach a starting point or else we would never have reached our present moment. But there is a contradiction that the author tries to skirt merely by mentioning it, saying that God is not a thing like other things. This takes the concept out of logical discussion. It is logically fallacious to claim that God is excused from this contradiction without providing the specific explanation for that exemption. If God is not a thing, what is God that allows him to be infinite when infinity is "manifestly absurd". It is the same logical fallacy that is contained in the "unmoved mover" argument.

If we were to reach a starting point then how did creation endow itself with processes and laws when we see that it cannot deviate from these laws? Only an entity that is independent of laws could create such laws and processes. We see nature subservient to laws not a creator. It follows set rules and does not have creativity. Something must have had creativity to put these processes and laws in place.

We do not find any creativity in existence only a subservience to laws it cannot deviate from so we infer from that that an independent entity must exist in order to have put in place these laws and processes. We call that entity God.

 

[JustWondering]

If we were to reach a starting point then how did creation endow itself with processes and laws when we see that it cannot deviate from these laws? Only an entity that is independent of laws could create such laws and processes. We see nature subservient to laws not a creator. It follows set rules and does not have creativity. Something must have had creativity to put these processes and laws in place.

We do not find any creativity in existence only a subservience to laws it cannot deviate from so we infer from that that an independent entity must exist in order to have put in place these laws and processes. We call that entity God.

That's great, so who or what made God? What made the creator of God? What made the creator of the creator of God? And so on, and so on...

Your argument breaks down to: "There are things I don't understand and may never understand about the universe and life as we know it, therefore, God!".

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume the universe needs a creator. You assume that if a creator exists that it is free of any rules or restrictions of its own. You assume a creator would simply exist without a beginning of its own. You assume that if a creator exists that it must care about humanity. The truth is your beliefs are founded on wishful thinking, not reason, evidence, or logic.

 

[Willamena]

That's great, so who or what made God? What made the creator of God? What made the creator of the creator of God? And so on, and so on...

What does it matter? It's not like we (other folk) can explain the universe.

Your argument breaks down to: "There are things I don't understand and may never understand about the universe and life as we know it, therefore, God!".

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume the universe needs a creator. You assume that if a creator exists that it is free of any rules or restrictions of its own. You assume a creator would simply exist without a beginning of its own. You assume that if a creator exists that it must care about humanity. The truth is your beliefs are founded on wishful thinking, not reason, evidence, or logic.

It's a philosophical argument for belief: properties do not endow themselves with themselves. Is that really a problem?

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's great, so who or what made God? What made the creator of God? What made the creator of the creator of God? And so on, and so on...

Your argument breaks down to: "There are things I don't understand and may never understand about the universe and life as we know it, therefore, God!".

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume the universe needs a creator. You assume that if a creator exists that it is free of any rules or restrictions of its own. You assume a creator would simply exist without a beginning of its own. You assume that if a creator exists that it must care about humanity. The truth is your beliefs are founded on wishful thinking, not reason, evidence, or logic.

It is logical for instance that a television follows programmed instructions and that it did not manufacture itself. That is clearly self explanatory, reasonable, entirely rational and reasonable. No wishful thinking there. Apply the same principle to the universe. It is logical argument that it did not manufacture itself.

So just as the television didn't just appear just out of nowhere, it had a technician or engineer. Why is this clear logic and rationale so difficult to understand? It is clear logic that the universe is an object like the television that is just there. But it did not get there by itself. Just like the tv it had a manufacturer, so simple. So logical and rational.

Now can the television understand or comprehend its technician? It is incapable of that. That is logical. But it is illogical to say that the Rv had no maker just as it is illogical to say the universe had no maker.

The nature of that maker, like the tv that cannot comprehend its technician, we cannot comprehend as, like the tv we do not possess that ability. All we know of God and that He does exist is because He sends Prophets and Teachers to us to tell us of His existence.

These are all very logical arguments. There does come a point where we become incapable of knowing otherwise we would be God and be All Knowing. That is not the case. Our knowledge and just how much knowledge we can understand is limited.

 

[McBell]

Apply the same principle to the universe.

this is where your "logic" fails.

Comparing something you know was made by humans to something not made by humans and claiming they are the same is not logical.

 

[Willamena]

It is logical for instance that a television follows programmed instructions and that it did not manufacture itself. That is clearly self explanatory, reasonable, entirely rational and reasonable. No wishful thinking there. Apply the same principle to the universe. It is logical argument that it did not manufacture itself.

So just as the television didn't just appear just out of nowhere, it had a technician or engineer. Why is this clear logic and rationale so difficult to understand? It is clear logic that the universe is an object like the television that is just there.

Some people believe in the Clockwork universe; for others, the universe is a bit more mysterious.

But it did not get there by itself. Just like the tv it had a manufacturer, so simple. So logical and rational.

Now can the television understand or comprehend its technician? It is incapable of that. That is logical. But it is illogical to say that the Rv had no maker just as it is illogical to say the universe had no maker.

Is it clear to say the opposite, though. Because man builds steps, is it clear to say that a step was built by man? Or is man emulating nature? Could nature put one stone "in front of" another (as it has done)?

The nature of that maker, like the tv that cannot comprehend its technician, we cannot comprehend as, like the tv we do not possess that ability. All we know of God and that He does exist is because He sends Prophets and Teachers to us to tell us of His existence.

These are all very logical arguments.

These arguments are not in the purview of logic. They are the purview of divination.

There does come a point where we become incapable of knowing otherwise we would be God and be All Knowing. That is not the case. Our knowledge and just how much knowledge we can understand is limited.

We are not incapable of knowing the content of a word that we have developed, that has meant so much to so many people over countless millennia. The only limit we have is the one we impose on ourselves through ignorance.