Age and God; A correlation?

[Fishteacher73]

To not believe in something that there is no proof of does not seem irrational. To attribute the unknown to some "supreme being" (yet again) does seem a bit irrational.

[Biochemist]

To not believe in something that there is no proof of does not seem irrational. To attribute the unknown to some "supreme being" (yet again) does seem a bit irrational.

Yes, but that is not the argument.

 

Take the shortest, simplest case. The causality of the Big Bang is conjecture. One could postulate either a theistic or a non-theistic proposition, but both are postulates. To contend otherwise is bias.

 

That fact that some folks (even people of science) misuse logical construct to defend their position does not offset the fact that others do not.

[lindagarrette]

As I have mentioned, theism is no different in terms of "rationality" than atheism. To impute irrationality into theism is itself irrational.

 

Theism is irrational almost by definition. It is based on belief in myths and superstition. Reasonable thinkers do not hold onto such notions for long.

[kaelcarp]

Theism is non-rational, but I wouldn't call it irrational. It doesn't necessarily contradict reason, but it doesn't use reason as a means for acquiring knowledge. It uses faith.

[Biochemist]

Theism is irrational almost by definition. It is based on belief in myths and superstition. Reasonable thinkers do not hold onto such notions for long.

One last time, then I might give up on you. Atheism is IDENTICAL in degree of assumption to theism. If you believe that atheism is "irrational almost by definition" as well, you are being internally consistent. If not, this is garden variety bias.

 

And, as I have oft repeated, there are many folks that are regarded as "reasonable thinkers" that hold these beliefs for extended periods (Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Mendel, etc.) You don't have to agree with them, but to suggest they are not "reasonbale" is a bit of a stretch.

 

I think your core argument is completely unsupported. I am happy to take this discussion off-line with you if you like.

[bumab]

Theism is non-rational, but I wouldn't call it irrational. It doesn't necessarily contradict reason, but it doesn't use reason as a means for acquiring knowledge. It uses faith.

 

Theism can use reason as a means for aquiring knowledge, though. For many people (especially here), theism DOES use reason. To imply a belief in God is based soley on faith, and merely agrees with reason on some tangental, lucky coincidence is incorrect. Theism is a logical possibility to many obsevations we can make, as have been brought up here by several people, such as free will, creativity, etc.

[kaelcarp]

There is no way one can logically conclude that god exists, since we don't have enough evidence one way or the other. Nor can one make a logical conclusion that god does not exist. Any statement for or against the existence of a deity is made entirely based on faith.

[bumab]

No...

 

A statement that God NECCESSARILY exists or does not exist cannot be made except by faith. A statement "there is evidence for God" or "there is evidence against God" can be made logically, and rationally. Your acceptance of one of those positions is not made entirely on faith.

[Biochemist]

A statement that God NECCESSARILY exists or does not exist cannot be made except by faith. A statement "there is evidence for God" or "there is evidence against God" can be made logically, and rationally. Your acceptance of one of those positions is not made entirely on faith.

There is no way one can logically conclude that god exists, since we don't have enough evidence one way or the other. Nor can one make a logical conclusion that god does not exist. Any statement for or against the existence of a deity is made entirely based on faith.

Interesting differences here. I think I am closer to Bumab's position here. I do think that one can make a decision either way, and can do it on the preponderance of evidence. I think that it is difficult to suggest there is no evidence.

 

Experientially, the folks that I know who become theists usually do so because they are on a search for meaning of some sort. It is often after some personal crisis, or event of personal import. Even though many move toward God because of personal events, it does not obviate the weight of a discussion based on evidence.

 

I really think the evidence is pretty good that that darn tomb was empty and that no one could have stolen the body. No one has to agree with that position, but this is an evidenciary discussion, not a faith discussion.

[bumab]

.....No one has to agree with that position, but this is an evidenciary discussion, not a faith discussion.

 

Right. That was my point. It is possible to make evidence-backed claims on either side, thus making faith a non-requirement, although it certainly does figure into the equation of individual's beliefs. Discussions about those beliefs do not require appeals to faith alone.

[Freethinker]

Interesting differences here. I think I am closer to Bumab's position here. I do think that one can make a decision either way, and can do it on the preponderance of evidence. I think that it is difficult to suggest there is no evidence.

It's not only NOT difficult, it is as simple as can be. And my claim would be equally simple to disprove.

 

Provide ANY FACTUAL VALID SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFYABLE evidence that exists in this supposed "preponderance of evidence". Show us ANYTHING that REQUIRES a god or at least is not as easily explain without a god. Give us ONE piece of factual scientific evidence which is exclusively on the god side of the list.

[Biochemist]

It's not only NOT difficult, it is as simple as can be. And my claim would be equally simple to disprove.

FT- We have taken this discussion on in the other thread (gasp- unbelievers in church). But you can glance at post #19 in this thread if you like.

[pgrmdave]

I think I've said it before, but, I find that the only think which may have required a God is the first occurance. Anything after that is explainable through laws, which may or may not have been created by God, but, since I do not think that within our universe something can come from nothing, then I must accept that it was something beyond our universe.

[Biochemist]

I think I've said it before, but, I find that the only think which may have required a God is the first occurance. Anything after that is explainable through laws, which may or may not have been created by God, but, since I do not think that within our universe something can come from nothing, then I must accept that it was something beyond our universe.

I think your position is internally consistent.

[bumab]

...I do not think that within our universe something can come from nothing....

 

Then you must accept that if something DOES come from nothing, it has a supernatural cause.

 

Which is where the free will discussion ended up, but also things like creativity, beauty, the sense of self (i think, therefore i am), etc. Those are various lines of evidence for something coming from nothing (evidence, not proof, everyone. don't get too riled up). All must be denied for your statement to be a consistent worldview.

[Fishteacher73]

Which is where the free will discussion ended up, but also things like creativity, beauty, the sense of self (i think, therefore i am), etc. Those are various lines of evidence for something coming from nothing (evidence, not proof, everyone. don't get too riled up). All must be denied for your statement to be a consistent worldview.

 

These ideals or concepts did not come from "nothing". They are easily deduced to evolutionary traits that help propogate species survival (aside from free-will, which is all together another can o' worms). Many of these ideas have shifted a bit from their original usefulness with the change from "wild type" of humans to a society based culture. But one can easily see how these would be useful adaptations.

 

I see no need nor reason to atribute them to a higher being.

[Freethinker]

("X" substitute is mine)

There is no way one can logically conclude that "X" exists, since we don't have enough evidence one way or the other. Nor can one make a logical conclusion that "X" does not exist. Any statement for or against the existence of "X" is made entirely based on faith.

("X" substitute is mine)

Substitute for "X"

Tooth Fairy

Santa Claus

Easter Bunny

leprechaun

Mithra

Zuess

...

 

This approach is rejected by any rational adult at every turn for "X", except when the "X" has the word "god" substituted. Then some supposed "rational adults" draw an imaginary line in the sand and want to pretend a "rational adult" can not make an informed decision based on the application of logic and reason.

 

And even god(s) are not removed from the application of rationality. IF that god myth is not the one the claimant is suckered into or is currently the popular one. e.g., how many adults able to walk and talk at the same time actually accept the serious possibility of the existence of Magni, Zuess, Isis, ... or any of the thousands of god myths humans have suckered for?

 

Yes any rational adult can make an informed decision based on the application of logic and factual support. In thousands of cases, there is not the least hesitation to outright acknowledge that Zuess, Thor, Tooth fairies, ... do not exist. An Atheist merely stays internally consistant. No artifical lines in the sand. No need to pretend a decision can not be made for a singular claim when they can outright reject thousands of others. No need to reliquish the mature process of making a decision.

 

Many will try to pretend that we need to refuse to make a rational informed decision lest some yet invented symbolic representation for the term "god" might actually be valid. SHould at some future point some defintion be invented for something that can reasonably be considered a god be found to have crfedibility, then the issue can be reopened and re-evaluated. But the reaity at this point is that every definition for any god lacks any credible support. They are neither internally consistant nor even possible based on known science.

 

At that point each person has to deicde whether they will bein internally consistant themselvs or instead pretend their god defintion can not be decided on, or that lacking any valid reason to accept it, they will anyway.