-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
reasonable to believe in God?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
At its core, true god-belief is an aesthetical inclination and a versão personalizado matter.
Whether it is resonable - or even possible to consider or to reject - hás to be asked and answered on an individual basis.
Whether it is resonable - or even possible to consider or to reject - hás to be asked and answered on an individual basis.
I agree
If it's reasonable to believe in one type of God then it is reasonable to believe in others
Not always
It is also reasonable to believe in no god or types of gods
Please explain
Absolutely
PureX
Veteran Member
No. It is not reasonable to believe in views of reality that we can't know to be so.
However, it is reasonable to choose to trust that reality will turn out to be as we hope, even though we cannot know that it will. As long as it's reasonably possible, it's worth acting on, because in doing so we can often make it so even when it otherwise might not have been.
Belief is not logically reasonable. But acting on faith, is.
I think we humans really need to learn the difference between belief and faith, and then choose the latter, and drop the former.
rocala
Well-Known Member
A very good question.
We can look at reality in a rational manner and feel that there is something greater. In addition, some of us do not feel confined to the accepted five senses and speak of another, something intuitive. In some cases this indicates "God", whatever that may mean.
On the whole I would accept such beliefs as "reasonable".
*sigh* There's that mouse again.
You have humans, too? Your minions are growing.
Some deities are simply far less believable than others.
Most obviously, pantheism and deism don't really require a lot of evidence.
Yes, that makes sense
I think that if there is truly a God then it is more likely to be like the Deist conception rather than the Abrahamic conception
Personally my own God concept is similar to both........
The god's never wrote a word. So it's not the god that is unbelievable.
I can see why there is a conflict but to have an appreciation of even being alive, then both have merit without having to retain a belief/religion.
My approach to this question is, "can we arrive at God belief using pure and sound reasoning?"
I believe the answer is no. If we could do that then I believe that only people with an agenda would deny that it is true once those steps of reason where laid out, and I dont see the scientific community as being that averse to reason as to have such a significant portion of the scientific community prepared to deny the certainty of existence of God.
So I would say in conclusion that it is not reasonable to believe in God, but it is ok to be unreasonable provided it is not done in such a way as to be a source of demonstrable harm.
I see a stark contrast between religions and beliefs, but in any case pantheistic and deistic beliefs are still beliefs.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's reasonable that a god would be invented as a natural coping mechanism in view of the unexplainable, so it's not hard to envision primitive individuals and societies creating it's own particular deity(s) that would answer and explain the forces of nature that must have looked horribly frightening and intimidating at the time in addition to natures beauty awe and wonder.
However as things continue to be explained through science and technology , those original goal posts have been moved to other aspects of the unknown as the previous gives out its secrets through discovery and experimentation, yet people in spite of all the advancement and evolution thus far, still harbor their primitive traits as can be seen in todays modern era.
To answer my own OP..............
My God is essentially a "God of gaps" whom I prefer to call The Supreme Being
To me it is a self-existent unmoved mover who is the reason why there is something rather than nothing
And that's more or less it
I think this is not unreasonable
I believe that Jesus Christ is the personal aspect of The Supreme Being
But that the accounts we have of his life have been sadly gabled - although the general message has remained intact
I see The Bible as an epic historical fiction, with its own fictitious universe, that is based somewhat on reality
I also believe in The Holy Spirit, I have compelling personal reasons to believe this that I have shared on RF in the past but am not going to share here ever again (if you really want to know feel free to private message me)
I think all this is reasonable, independently of whether it's false or true
My God is essentially a "God of gaps" whom I prefer to call The Supreme Being
To me it is a self-existent unmoved mover who is the reason why there is something rather than nothing
And that's more or less it
I think this is not unreasonable
I believe that Jesus Christ is the personal aspect of The Supreme Being
But that the accounts we have of his life have been sadly gabled - although the general message has remained intact
I see The Bible as an epic historical fiction, with its own fictitious universe, that is based somewhat on reality
I also believe in The Holy Spirit, I have compelling personal reasons to believe this that I have shared on RF in the past but am not going to share here ever again (if you really want to know feel free to private message me)
I think all this is reasonable, independently of whether it's false or true