Your Video Failed to Demonstrate that Belief in God is Irrational
Offline I watched the edited video you had on your site. You state that the most irrational claims today are those made by "religion." From the context, it is clear that this can be extended to convey that belief in God is tantamount to "religion." As I wrote in another thread, it can easily be shown that belief in God is NOT irrational. Since your raison d'etre here is to contend that belief in God is irrational, and not simply to claim that not believing in God is rational (there's a big difference), you need rethink your motives for operating this site if a rational case is made for the existence of God and you are honest as you claim.
One of the foundational truths in logic is "ex nihilo nihil fit," or in english, "out of nothing comes nothing." If this is not obvious by inspection, consider the following. If we all agree that something exists, then something must be self-existent. Since the "something" we experience on a daily basis (matter, time, space, etc...) cannot come from nothing, either the "something" must be self-existent, or it must have been created by another "something" or "somethings" of which at least one is/are self-existent. The only other alternative, which is irrational, is that the "something" created itself. (Infinite regression should also be mentioned as a possibility, but that can be shown to have serious problems, and neither of us is contending for that option. In any case it is not relevent to the point of this post, which is to make a case that belief in God is indeed rational.)
Your contention that the "something" ("cosmos" from here on) is self-existent is not irrational, but neither is belief in a transcendent Creator of the cosmos Who is self-existent. We can debate the reasons why one or the other is true, but that is not the point of this post. The point is to simply present a cogent case for the existence of God. I don't claim that I can scientifically prove the existence of God. Nobody can, but that does not mean that He does not exist. God never demands that we try to scientifically prove His existence.
Your discussion of the laws of conservation of mass and energy doesn't prove anything regarding the self-existence of the cosmos. Can you "prove" to us that the laws of physics will always continue in the future as they have in the past? I think not. Honest scientists (these folks are getting rarer and rarer, especially in the life sciences) agree with this. The existence of any "law" implies a Lawmaker, so your invoking of the laws of thermodynamics goes against your case.
You may not like what the Bible says, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I don't like many of the manmade laws that exist, but that doesn't mean there are no manmade laws or lawmakers.
Based on the foregoing, please present a cogent, rational argument why belief in God is irrational. Show us logically why the foregoing case for the existence of God is irrational. Forget about bringing up the negative things done in the name of religion, Richard Dawkins (who, by the way, said that he would still believe in Darwinian evolution if there were NO EVIDENCE for it, whatsoever -- what kind of "scientist" is that???), illogical quotes made in the name of religion, and all the other red herrings that fill this site. Those mean nothing. I want you to prove to me that belief in God is irrational. C'mon, go ahead, let's hear it.
Yes, I am a Christian (or hatemonger to many here).
- Login to post comments
Belief in god is irrational because there is no evidence for it. The only "evidence" used is the Bible or faith, neither of which prove anything.
The God Hypothesis is also not even a hypothesis at all. It is not falsifiable. It lacks a "positive" ontology.
See here
http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term
The link might not work so make sure to delete any added terms that pop in the link bar after _term.
Biochemist & Law Student
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson
thraxas wrote:
>>Belief in god is irrational because there is no evidence for it.<<
Is this the best a "Silver Member" can do? Pretty pathetic.
First of all, I strongly disagree with your assertion that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but that is beside the point of this thread. Even if there were no evidence for the existence of God, that alone would not make belief in a self-existent transcendent God irrational. Rationality pertains to logic, not evidence. On the topic of evidence, the "super-hero" of this site, Richard Dawkins, stated, "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." How "scientific."
Answer the question.
You may not like the fact that Thor makes lighting and thunder, but that doesnt mean Thor doesnt exist.
Can you compare your statment, "That doesnt mean God doesnt exist" to the sentance I typed above and see if you can understand the faulty logic you used.
"Prove that Allah doesnt exist"
"Prove that Yahwey doesnt exist"
"Prove that Vishnu doesnt exist"
"Prove that pink invidable unicorns dont live on mars"
See the flaw in that yet?
Humans are so gullable because when someone makes a claim like those above, they dont ask for evidence.
For the same reason you dont simply say, "Allah must exist because I cant prove he doesnt"
I dont say to myself, "The God of Jesus must exist because I cant prove he doesnt"
If we all did that we'd believe everything everyone ever says to us.
So, a better way of determining reality of what is, is to have the ability to universally demonstrate it to others. In simple words, it is a better method to back up what you claim with evidence.
The burdon of proof is on the person making the claim.
If a Muslim said, "Allah exists" you dont merely buy it because they claim it.
I am no different. I dont buy your Christian God merely because you claim it. It is up to you to provide evidence for the claims you make. Just as if a Muslim wanted you to convert to Islam, you'd ask for evidence for their claim before adapting their postion.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Read. "God the failed hypothesis". It's on the right side of the website. It does a rather good job of scientifically debunking any "so-called" Evidence for god, and scientifically shows, note I say scientifically, that there is no true evidence for god.
"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.
Brian_37 wrote:
>>You may not like the fact that Thor makes lighting and thunder, but that doesnt mean Thor doesnt exist.
Can you compare your statment, "That doesnt mean God doesnt exist" to the sentance I typed above and see if you can understand the faulty logic you used.
"Prove that Allah doesnt exist"
"Prove that Yahwey doesnt exist"
"Prove that Vishnu doesnt exist"
"Prove that pink invidable unicorns dont live on mars"
See the flaw in that yet?
Humans are so gullable because when someone makes a claim like those above, they dont ask for evidence.
For the same reason you dont simply say, "Allah must exist because I cant prove he doesnt"
I dont say to myself, "The God of Jesus must exist because I cant prove he doesnt"
If we all did that we'd believe everything everyone ever says to us.
So, a better way of determining reality of what is, is to have the ability to universally demonstrate it to others. In simple words, it is a better method to back up what you claim with evidence.
The burdon of proof is on the person making the claim.
If a Muslim said, "Allah exists" you dont merely buy it because they claim it.
I am no different. I dont buy your Christian God merely because you claim it. It is up to you to provide evidence for the claims you make. Just as if a Muslim wanted you to convert to Islam, you'd ask for evidence for their claim before adapting their postion.<<
More red herring detritus....heavy sigh....
Look, I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, or to "buy my Christian God." I'm asking that you defend your MAIN PREMISE that belief in a self-existent transcendent God is irrational. Get it? I don't care about Thor, Allah, pink unicorns, or red herrings. I stated that in the initial post.
Answer the question.
Tyl3r04 wrote:
>>Read. "God the failed hypothesis". It's on the right side of the website. It does a rather good job of scientifically debunking any "so-called" Evidence for god, and scientifically shows, note I say scientifically, that there is no true evidence for god.<<
Why should I read this? I'm not asking for evidence. I'm asking for a logical defense. Can't YOU defend the main premise promulgated by this site and the video without appealing to some irrelevant story? Apparently not
Come on, answer the question.
1. Belief in God can only be formed through faith.
2. Faith means the holding of belief regardless of evidence for or against that belief.
3. Rationality requires that beliefs be supported by evidence.
Therefore, belief in God is irrational.
Stop right there. The second part of that sentence is not necessary. We can say that "something exists." There's no need for this characteristic of "self-existant". What does that even mean?
Or it was never created at all and has always been there. Or it was created in another universe with completely different rules of time and space.
You are making the assumption that creation must have occured, in the sense of a linear progression from there being nothing, to some action occuring, to there being something. In other words, you are deciding, a priori, that Genesis gives us the correct blueprint for the origins of the universe. Either back up your reasons for making this assumption or admit that you hold this view on faith and are irrational in doing so.
Here's the difference between the universe and your creator: we can see that the universe exists. It is all around us. It is an a tautological fact. We cannot see your creator. There is no evidence for his existance. Therefore, you have no rational basis for belief in him.
Tell you what, on the day the laws of physics change, you can come in here and tell us all you told us so. Until then, the laws of physics are the laws of physics and we have no reason to believe they will ever change, as they have not in the 14 billion years the universe has been around so far.
Since we have no evidence whatsoever that the laws of physics might change, you must support your assertion that they can, or admit that you hold this view irrationaly.
You are confusing laws made in Congress with the laws of nature. This is such a stupid mistake that I really don't know where to begin.
For now, I'll simply deny your naked assertion that the existance of natural laws implies a lawmaker and challenge you to support your claim. If you can't, you must admit that you hold this view irrationally.
The Bible has nothing to do with God. People wrote the Bible and you have no evidence whatsoever that God helped them in any way. You hold the belief that God wrote the Bible on faith, unsupported by evidence, and are therefore irrational.
You just heard it. Is that all you got? 'Cause if it is, you are leaving here with a big red IRRATIONAL stamp across your forehead.
You lack the wit and knowledge to question Dawkins on anything that he says about evolution. Don't even bother trying to go there. No really, drop it now or you are going to wind up so embarassed that you will wish you had never posted here.
Personally, I would never tar an individual with the same brush I use for a larger group. I understand that, within any group, there are people who are more or less like the norm. That said, it is accurate to call Christians, as a broad group, hatemongers. Just take the recent effort to deny gays the right to marry, for no reason.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Ok. You want a logical defense here's a logical defense, sir.
Believing in God is irrational because there is truly nothing to suggest that a God even exists. The only reason a "God" Exists today is because humans made God. In the past, humans were not very knowledgeable of the world as they are today. They look to other means to fill in the explanations of how the world works. Those other means being God. Hence, "The God of the Gaps." They didn't know how something worked, so they said God did it.
Now, it was understandable for them to need a God back then. Man-kind was young, and was still learning. However, in the modern-age today, man-kind is becomming more and more intelligent, that is obvious. Where-as 400 years ago we have a select few of intelligent thinkers, we have untold amounts nowadays. Religion and belief in God was understandable back then because, man-kind needed something to answer their questions back then. However, it is irrational today. We are becoming more and more knowledgeable of our existence and intelligent enough to come about that knowledge through our own means, rather than "God" did it.
Religion and God, in a sense before modern times was a "Blanket" that man-kind used to answer their questions and to keep them safe. That "Blanket" in modern times, today is unnecessary because as humans we have become intelligent enough to not need it. Hence, to believe in God is irrational because there are a world of other rational possibilities than God.
"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Please review the forum rules:
2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right. Incidents can include, but are by no means limited to the following:
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Well, excuse me!!!!!! You can dish it out but you can't take it. I guess "-We must end RELIGION or RELIGION will end us." is not antagonistic.
C ya! As I discovered before, this site is irrational, hypocritical, and a complete waste of time and recycled electrons.
Buh bye, Foolin'. It was fun seeing off your deluded fantasies. I wish I could say it was a challenge.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Wow, not so much a drive by evangelical as one that drove up, parked, and then left when we shot back. Foolin, you were given ample logical defenses and yet everyone was simply turned away as not what you wanted. You could have actually taken the time to consider what was being said or give a reasoned rebutal of the points. Saying "That point is wrong. Now answer my question!" doesn't make that point wrong.
Why am I wasting my keystrokes... He's gone anyway.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
That's real interresting. No evidence that God exists.... huh... I guess my basis for belief is shot then, be it that it was "evidence" that made me a believer.
I think it comes down to people who want to see it, and the people who don't. Rationality has a lot to do with discovering God believe it or not. and yes, its' what a person chooses to see. You cannot be told the truth unless you are willing to hear it.
IN Christ's love,
Nick
by the way... I agree with the last comment. no foolin' definitely didn't respond rationally, or the way a true Christian should respond to anyone. Keep in mind all that Christians are humans too though. And yes, we are NOT PERFECT. So sometimes our emotions can get in our way. Anyone who expects a christian to be perfect all the time or not ever get angry is definitely missing the point of being a Christian.
What is the evidence that made you a believer? "What a person chooses to see" doesn't sound very rational, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
So in other words you need to believe in order to believe? This argument is not convincing.