Is there a GOD?

[wayneL]

Yes, this is lamentable and on a broader scale, what about other kinds of exploitation that are commonplace and of which the majority of us are consumers? ie. battery farm chickens, the destruction of nearly all male chickens not long after hatching, and so on. This is all justified in the name of money. Ethical consideration for nature goes far beyond things like pollution.

Yes indeed. Agree 100%

 

[MS+Tradesim]

I think it [to be rational] means to analyse what data we have on hand to come up with an objective judgement.

I can work with that for now. So how does that apply such that a subscriber to an organised religion is not rational? Take for instance, Francis Collins, who was director of the human genome project. He's an accomplished scientist, agrees with evolution as a working model and is a Christian.

I don't want to pre-empt you and argue against something you don't think so let me just throw out a kind of typical objection and a response so that I'm not just asking you a string of questions.....It seems to me that the usual objection here would be precisely that he is a Christian. If he were rational, he would follow his scientific background through to a conclusion that God is not likely. But that would beg the question. For he became a Christian based on his consideration of a range of data to hand, such as scientific, philosophical and experiential. By scientific, I do not mean empirical proof of God, but rather by understanding the strengths and limits of science.

He thinks that his belief in the Christian God is justified based on his assessment of a range of factors and he finds no defeaters for his belief. This is one definition of "rational" (and contrary to popular belief, it is extremely hard to precisely define rationality). Now assume there is some concrete proof that no God exists and is so compelling as to command assent in anyone who understands it but that this proof has not yet been discovered. In the absence of this defeater for belief, Collins would continue to be rational to believe in God. Now if this proof comes to light and Collins is apprised of it but does not understand it, his belief still remains rational. But if he were to understand the truth of the proof (similar to how the truth of 1+1=2 is immediate and self-evident) and realise it is a defeater for his belief, yet he goes into denial and refuses to give up belief, then his belief in God would become irrational.

 

[Bobby]

How about a challenge for god illusionists , ask the creep to do something good for the people on this planet !


Guess the answer will be the old faithful ' god lets us have free will .
Well god you suck if you stuff this chance up .

PS. those of you that really believe , I forgive your stupidity ,
Praise me lord .

 

[Wysiwyg]

Have a bad day matey?

 

[Mr J]

So how does that apply such that a subscriber to an organised religion is not rational?

I should have expanded. Most of us having varying levels of overall rationality, and often vary greatly at how we apply it. We may be extremely rational in one respect, and not in others. I realise that there are many intelligent people who are a part of organised religion, but I would consider doing so irrational, despite that they might be overall rational people. I'm sure quite a few of these people would admit that they're following belief rather than fact. I don't think it is a flaw to suggest that many otherwise intelligent people can be irrational, as almost all of us are at times.

He thinks that his belief in the Christian God is justified based on his assessment of a range of factors and he finds no defeaters for his belief. This is one definition of "rational" (and contrary to popular belief, it is extremely hard to precisely define rationality).

I don't think it is rational though. I know rationality can yield incorrect results due to unknown information, but I think his interpretation of the data is flawed. There is no conclusive proof either way (despite many pointing to the bible etc), so a complete belief either way is not a logical assessment. If the evidence suggested that a god existed and that the strength of belief matched this probability, then I would say he is rational. It doesn't, so I don't believe he is. We all work with the same data, we just have different interpretations of the significance of the data.

 

[Bobby]

Have a bad day matey?

Thanks for your concern young human , I will consider your indolently soon , , praise the lord

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Mr J,

Then I'm afraid you are begging the question. You don't believe the evidence suggests that a God exists and you lack defeaters for the belief that the evidence is inconclusive, therefore you are rational to suspend belief. Collins (just an example) does believe the evidence suggests a God exists and he lacks defeaters for his belief, hence his belief is rational on that basis. You cannot assign irrationality to Collins belief merely on your belief that he is misinterpreting the data he has to hand.

 

[weird]

How about a challenge for god illusionists , ask the creep to do something good for the people on this planet !


Guess the answer will be the old faithful ' god lets us have free will .
Well god you suck if you stuff this chance up .

PS. those of you that really believe , I forgive your stupidity ,
Praise me lord .

Thanks for posting Bobby.

May I recommend having someone re-read your screech, sorry, speech, before delivering, if you are ever invited to make one at a wedding.

The criticism, actually, the anger and frustration, shown in the rebuttal posts of is there a God, makes one feel sorry for those posting.

There is obviously some inner anger or frustration issue there.

Before one rebuts, with the outer crap, about corruptions, just remember that followers subscribe to the simple wisdom of the originators, and not what has occurred afterward in politics and wars.

And also note your comments are actually hitting the people following the original beliefs, and not the past corruptions, which you may be angry or find fault with.

I personally wouldn't attack someone I have little understanding of, but perhaps we do that a lot in the West and everywhere else. A few freaks bomb us, kill an entire town and country !!!

Actually while painting a picture, I am thinking of the husband screaming, with lost children and wife, wife screaming of lost husband and children, children with no parents, perhaps they are covered in blood, seeing them die ... where is God, God is there, but where is a humanity ? Perhaps to comfort the child (there is God), yet humans did this, not in the name of religion, but in the name of power.

Perhaps ask where is God in humans, because they are the current instruments in our destruction.

 

[Bobby]

I personally wouldn't attack someone I have little understanding of, but perhaps we do that a lot in the West and everywhere else. Few freaks bomb us, bomb all of them !!!

I'm not attacking ' I'm asking your god to do something , seems the silly bugger has gone into hibernation

Hope alls well with you Weird .

 

[Mr J]

Mr J,

Then I'm afraid you are begging the question. You don't believe the evidence suggests that a God exists, therefore you are rational to suspend belief. Collins (just an example) does believe the evidence suggests a God exists, and his belief is rational on that basis. You cannot assign irrationality to Collins belief merely on your belief that he is misinterpreting the data he has to hand.

By commenting about the interpretation of data, I was suggesting that it wasn't his belief that was irrational, but the interpretation of data. If one believes the data to be accurate, then of course the judgement is rational regardless of whether or not it is actually correct. To believe in a god is not just one-step process, it requires many little decisions to be made to come up with the main decision. I'm suggesting that religious people are making an error in small decisions.

I'm all for debating perspective, but there is nothing out there to state that a god exists, let alone a specific god. It may be that I don't have all of the evidence, as people say they "feel" God. Perhaps that isn't just an emotional reaction, and I'm missing a sense.

 

[weird]

Hope alls well with you Weird .

Thanks Bobby

 

[Bobby]

I'm all for debating perspective, but there is nothing out there to state that a god exists, let alone a specific god. It may be that I don't have all of the evidence, as people say they "feel" God. Perhaps that isn't just an emotional reaction, and I'm missing a sense.

Well said Mr J , for those with clear minds believing in such hyperbole is both embarrassing and detrimental to living a real live .

 

[weird]

Bobby, loaded mate ... your comments are just trash talk ... no substance, just rubbishing.

I could make up a comment,

"Green people are evil" ... posted it, why would I not post it, if it was not true ?

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT RUBBISHING

Tired of this crap, alas, post no more,

except

BEWARE OF WHITE, YELLOW AND EBONY (and every other colour) PEOPLE THEY ARE THE WORST !!!!!

 

[Bobby]

Bobby, loaded mate ... your comments are just trash talk ... no substance, just rubbishing.

I could make up a comment,

"Green people are evil" ... posted it, why would I not post it, if it was not true ?

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT RUBBISHING

Tired of this crap, alas, post no more,

except

BEWARE OF WHITE, YELLOW AND EBONY (and every other colour) PEOPLE THEY ARE THE WORST !!!!!

Dave my blessings are upon you , see what the lord has done my son , Yes I now forgive you .
Pray for all us heathens then ''''''

 

[weird]

Dude, I don't know if you are trading tonight, but I hope your cognitive powers are stronger than they are now at your posting.

Those weak impressions of blessings are a joke for anyone that post them ... more sad than amusing.

Anyhow wish you best Bobby.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Mr J,

Let's try a different tack. In the mid 20th century the infamous positivist verification principle reigned supreme. Though it is a family of views (rather than one) they say roughly the same thing ie. only that which can be directly perceived or experienced/sensed can count towards knowledge. Though it was widespread, particularly in philosophy, it was rightfully criticised and refuted on the basis that it was self-defeating. The proposition "only that which can be directly experienced can count towards knowledge" is itself a claim that cannot be directly experienced. It is not an experiential fact but a metaphysical proposition - the very kind of thing it was supposed to exclude from the room. It had no right to be taken seriously, but it was. A very similar view is widely popular today and that is "I only believe what science can prove". Ironically, there is no scientific way to demonstrate this proposition. It is a metaphysical statement grounded in the holder's subjective perception. Yet people take this very seriously, little realising that it is self-defeating and I've met very few people who hold it, that will admit to that fact.

So all of that is to ask: is it rational to believe "I only believe what science can prove?"

(Note that I'm not asserting you are saying this. It's just towards a point I'm getting at.)

The relevance of this is that the most common objection to belief in any kind of God (not just the Christian one), is that there may be no way to scientifically prove that a God exists. At first glance, that may seem sensible but IMO, the oddity of this can be underlined by the fact that there is no way to scientifically prove we are not just brains in vats (a la "The Matrix") or that other minds exist. Yet it is perfectly rational to believe we are not just brains in vats being fed sensory input, and it is perfectly rational to believe other people have minds. Intuitively, we would suspect people who thought other minds don't exist to have loose wiring! The question of the existence of God is surely of a different kind to the question of "what temperature does water boil at near sea-level?" It seems to me a lot more like the question of consciousness, that is reasonably considered by many scientists and philosophers to not be reducible to "every mental state is only its neural correlate". The reality is, we all rationally believe many things that science is not equipped to rule on.

 

[Bobby]

Dude, I don't know if you are trading tonight, but I hope your cognitive powers are stronger than they are now at your posting.

Those weak impressions of blessings are a joke for anyone that post them ... more sad than amusing.

Anyhow wish you best Bobby.

Thanks Dave , yep I'm trading the FTSE at the moment & drinking beer , the lord seems to be on my side , gee Dave did you bribe the dope for me ?

Thanks for the good wishes , they are reciprocal .

Take Care.

 

[Go Nuke]

Gee its a battle between belivers and non belivers....with not much in between.

I'm in between.

I'd love to believe there is a god, so that
A) I can be somehow reunited with loved ones after death...somehow.
B) So that maybe I can go to some mythical land where they have magic....like something out of a DragonLance book. That would be awesome too lol.
Something very much unlike this world because this world has a lot of suckfulness about it. Except animals and nature etc. I feel sorry for nature because humans are selfish and ruin it for nature

I have a theory about life/death though.

You know how people say they see a whitelight when they have near death experiences....well what if when you die...the white light is you being reborn again. Yes thats right...the white light is the hospital where you are being delivered all over again.

I'd be so disappointed with that theory of mine...I truely would.
But it could just be that life is a cycle of death and rebirth for us all.

The only cool thing about that would be that I would then get to see humans achieve the great goals that only science fiction can create now.

Nope.....still rather a fantasy world

 

[Happy]

Not all souls are recycled as we have more people and now it seem to be exponential rise.

Also we have to spare a thought to great apes 98% identical to humans, pigs 80% identical to humans.....

 

[Kez180]

I believe that when you die, that is it, that is all, you are over...

I do not believe that is a god, but I acknowledge that it is beyond my comprehension...

There is only one thing I cannot forgive religion for, that is giving people the perception that there is something else after life, thus discouraging the human race as a whole from attempting to live forever....