Printable View
Today in my phil of religion class, my professor posed a simple question:
Is it rational to believe in God?
Me, I say no. Since rationality is a product of rules of the human mind, and since God exceeds the limits of the human mind, then God also exceeds rationality.
Give your opinion and back it up with a logical argument.
Johnny, Epicurus laid it down a couple of thousand years ago. It seems to still hold up to me.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
In my opinion, belief in god is not rational or logical. Having "faith" is central to all religions. To have faith in the existence of god, one must refute logic and reason IMHO.
The belief in God is not illogical. What is illogical is the way humans have portrayed God. The attributes we have given God.
From the time humanity first obtained the ability to reason, we have looked for the answers to the question of our origin and purpose. Sense before the written word, stories were made of gods and the powers that be, in an effort to come to this understanding.
Ten thousand years ago humanity had no understanding of the forces of nature. But yet, because of our desire to understand and to know, we came to conclusions based on what we did know. These understandings took many forms, shaped by culture and the environments people were exposed to.
Now humanity has come to understand the workings of the atom and the underlying forces of nature. Yet people cling to ideas based on archaic wisdom. People all over the world think God to be a spirit separate from the universe, when in fact God is the universe.
It is now thought that there may be 11 dimensions of time and space. If this is found to be true, then God is not only the universe, God is the multi-verse.
It is believed that this universe was created in what has been called the "big bang". Even now people strive to understand what was there at the instant of creation using tools like the Large Hadron Collider. Before this big bang it is said there was nothing. No time. No space. Even this absence of time and space was God.
People need to expand their mind to be able to understand the true nature of God. People should stop giving God human attributes.
Some notions put forth in days of old are correct. Take the ten commandments for instants. These laws concerning behavior are correct and right. They have withstood the test of time. Take the one that says, we should make no graven images. This is true because a stone, gold or wood figure of a supposed god has no power. It is not an all encompassing power that can create. It is merely a failed idea by one who seeks to understand.
Some ideas of creation and God were partly right. They were partly right because our understanding of the universe was incomplete. Take the book of Genesis. It is said there, we were created from the dust of the earth. This is correct. We were made of the stuff of the earth and are a part of it, and will one day return to it. Then in the same book it is said we were cast out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the tree of knowledge. In a way this is true too. Let me explain.
In our remote past, our ancestors lived like the animals. Day by day, hand to mouth. We wholly depended on what nature provided as nature provided it. Then one day we departed from that. We had a spark that allowed us to craft tools and to control fire. When that happened, we started to depend on our intellect to survive. That was the day we were metaphorically cast from the garden.
This Garden of Eden still exists, but it is not a place. It is a state of being. You can still see the garden if you're willing to open your mind. Look at the birds and the other creatures. They depend on what nature provides, where they can find it. They are living in the garden.
So is believing in God illogical? I think not. What is illogical is the manner in which we believe in God. :hippy:
i'd think that one should define what we mean by the term "god" before even beginning any discussion on the logic of faith. it seems that sentience is an integral part of the definition of god. it must have the will to effect us and our world, implying a self-awareness and a desire. this seems to rule out the uncaring energy of the universe. humanity has created this concept. by claiming that our understanding of it is illogical, you also make the claim that the concept itself is illogical. by claiming that god is the universe itself, you deny the very meaning of the term and, in doing so, deny the existence of god. redefining god does not validate its existence, it denies it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepurr
johnny- you should have first asked your professor to define his concept of god before stepping into such a ludicrous discussion.
Our understanding of God at this point is not logical. It is based on incomplete knowledge. Claiming that God is the universe in no way denys the existence of God. It is a statement who's purpose is to attempt to gain understanding. What is more correct, to say God is a gray bearded fellow who rules a heavenly domain, or to say God is all? One can not separate God from the universe. If God made all, all is made from God and is God.Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
Indeed the forces of the universe are uncaring and harsh. But yet, the universe attempts to understand its self. That understanding of its self takes the form of us or any sentient being who strives to unlock the secrets of time and space, for we are a part of the universe.
That being said, it would hold true that we also are a part of God, for we are a part of the universe.
We will not truly understand God till we have complete knowledge of the universe. To know the universe is to know God.
pepurr, your concept of god sounds more like the concept of the Tao.
I obviously don't have a problem with that concept, but what difference is there to us in our daily lives between a non-personal god and no god?
In my 1st post, I was going by the definition of the cognizant, personal god embodied in almost all religions. Any god belief involving a god who cares about the latest dominant species on one planet out of more planets than grains of sand on the beach is not logical. In my humble opinion.
The only difference to us in our daily lives between a non-personal god and no god is the difference we as individuals choose to put on it. For them who believe there is no God, there is no God. Then they return from whence they came, same as all the rest. Hopefully they return happy in knowing they are one with all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBlazer
True, it is not logical, and God can not do illogical things. If God loves one, how could God not love the other. God made them both of him self. By loving one and not the other, God would not be loving himself. A house divided can not stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBlazer
I agree. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by pepurr
I wanted to comment on my use of gender specific terms when writing the above comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepurr
I use the term him and his to refer to God sometimes, even though I try to avoid it. The terms are not used because I believe God to be male. I use them because I was brought up in a family that believed that. In my life and the culture I was raised in, God was always called by masculine terms. So today I do to as a matter of habit.
I do not believe God is male or female. God doesn't need gender. God is not a biological creature, so therefore God doesn't need to reproduce.
So all you people who have a "Mother Goddess" or "Our Father", if it gives you comfort so be it. I think if God chuckles about human activity God would chuckle about that.
Due to my Native American perspective, I usually avoid discussions on religion because I have come to believe that they are all a leap of faith.
Believing is seeing, so after making that leap, we are no longer logical in our beliefs and see only facts that support our position.
Very much like Zen, I believe we are all one and but individual pieces of the whole. Sort of like cells in the body, or drops of water in a river.
If there is a concept of sin, it is creating disharmony against the whole, though my beliefs allow me to thwart the minions of chaos in defense of the whole, after the harmony has already been broken. Very much like our own bodies have anti-bodies.
As a student of ancient history, it is impossible to not be aware of the founding of the current dominant religions, of which there were about 10,000 different ones with a following of 500 or more devotees, last time I researched it.
There are divisions within that 10,000 of course, and for instance Christianity itself had about 32, 000 and change different variations, and growing rapidly.
Each of those religions and divisions will die believing they are right, and the odds seem high to my engineering mind, that most will be wrong, including the sheer probability of the numbers that I am amongst them.
I like to think I have a discerning scientific mind, but alas the more deeply I dig into the celestial dance that is going on, the more I realize how little I understand and the more in awe I am of the details of what is going on.
It appears to me that life itself is constantly searching and finding ways to evolve and fill new niches.
A study of the Cambrian explosion and mathematical odds with hundreds of zeros after the decimal point and before a real number for even single celled bacteria, will put some of that into better perspective for any of yaâ??ll who havenâ??t.
I salute the good things that organized religion has provided, which have served to bind civilization together under a moral code.
I reject and abhor that the name of the creator has been dirtied and sullied by the mind of man and used to justify genocide. I also reject attempts at proselytizing me, because I know Iâ??m right.
One old manâ??s opinion and given my limited years left, it wonâ??t be all that long until I find out for sure.
GW
PS: My creator gave the fox and hare everything they needed to win, but is indifferent to which one does.