Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Reason
142 Answers
If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in a supernatural god, he has no rational reason at all. How can anyone believe anything without reason?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
> Now THAT's irrational
Another opinion stated as fact. Yet "I don't know" is the only rational answer to "Do supernatural gods exist?" since, by definition, if they're supernatural then they're "beyond scientific understanding" and therefore likely to be unrecognisable to mere humans.
Having said that, there are a number of objects and materials in the galaxy which are beyond current scientific understanding. Could they be proof of the existence of a supernatural god? Or simply the evidence that we don't know everything yet? Either way, none of us can say exactly what they are. An example of such a material is dark matter.
Last week humans (with 5 sigma certainty) proved the existence of a boson consistent with the Higgs boson or so-called "God particle". Yet the Higgs boson was only predicted in 1964. Before that, the "existence" of this particle was not even known, let alone proven. And to prove it, we had to build the Large Hadron Collider, which took 10 years and cost over £6bn. In 1965, 1963 or 2000BC, would it have been "rational" to say "The Higgs boson does not exist because I have seen no evidence that it does exist"?
By comparison to what it would take to prove the existence of a supernatural God, the proof of the existence of the Higgs boson is trivial. What test do you even propose for the existence of "a supernatural God" - not "the" God(s) as defined by any given religion(s), but 1) "a" 2) "supernatural" 3) "God".
Another opinion stated as fact. Yet "I don't know" is the only rational answer to "Do supernatural gods exist?" since, by definition, if they're supernatural then they're "beyond scientific understanding" and therefore likely to be unrecognisable to mere humans.
Having said that, there are a number of objects and materials in the galaxy which are beyond current scientific understanding. Could they be proof of the existence of a supernatural god? Or simply the evidence that we don't know everything yet? Either way, none of us can say exactly what they are. An example of such a material is dark matter.
Last week humans (with 5 sigma certainty) proved the existence of a boson consistent with the Higgs boson or so-called "God particle". Yet the Higgs boson was only predicted in 1964. Before that, the "existence" of this particle was not even known, let alone proven. And to prove it, we had to build the Large Hadron Collider, which took 10 years and cost over £6bn. In 1965, 1963 or 2000BC, would it have been "rational" to say "The Higgs boson does not exist because I have seen no evidence that it does exist"?
By comparison to what it would take to prove the existence of a supernatural God, the proof of the existence of the Higgs boson is trivial. What test do you even propose for the existence of "a supernatural God" - not "the" God(s) as defined by any given religion(s), but 1) "a" 2) "supernatural" 3) "God".
Ellipsis,
Higgs boson, a 'very teeny'(quote from the popular press) particle predicted in 1964, detected in 2012 by rationalists.
God, declared to exist several thousand years ago, so far undetected by believers..or anyone else.
'I do not know' if Ming the Merciless lives in the city of Mongo on another planet somewhere but I would bet money that he doesn't.
If you can't detect something in any way, it is, in practical terms reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist until you have reason to change your mind.
All sorts of ridiculous things can be postulated but there is no reason to take them seriously unless there is evidence of their existence. So it is with god and his fellow cohabitant of the planet fiction, Ming the Merciless. You can play philosophy games all you like but you won't alter facts.
Higgs boson, a 'very teeny'(quote from the popular press) particle predicted in 1964, detected in 2012 by rationalists.
God, declared to exist several thousand years ago, so far undetected by believers..or anyone else.
'I do not know' if Ming the Merciless lives in the city of Mongo on another planet somewhere but I would bet money that he doesn't.
If you can't detect something in any way, it is, in practical terms reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist until you have reason to change your mind.
All sorts of ridiculous things can be postulated but there is no reason to take them seriously unless there is evidence of their existence. So it is with god and his fellow cohabitant of the planet fiction, Ming the Merciless. You can play philosophy games all you like but you won't alter facts.
I think elipsis' point might be summed up as "Absence of evident evidence od absence" (forgive me if that is not the case)
I disagree - I think there is plenty of evidence that there is no Supernatural God.
Pretty much every religion has the notion of an immortal human soul (JWs might argue)
Without an immortal human soul God is no more than a super powerful alien
If you take away someones memory and personality there is no soul there - I've been watching my father lose those these past 2 years
If a soul cannot survive life it cannot survive death.
No soul No God
I disagree - I think there is plenty of evidence that there is no Supernatural God.
Pretty much every religion has the notion of an immortal human soul (JWs might argue)
Without an immortal human soul God is no more than a super powerful alien
If you take away someones memory and personality there is no soul there - I've been watching my father lose those these past 2 years
If a soul cannot survive life it cannot survive death.
No soul No God
"I have seen no evidence" is a conceited position - not a rational one.
What test (leading to what evidence) can there be for the existence of "a supernatural God"?
Is there really no evidence yet? Or are we simply not capable of recognising it yet?
I will not have religion rammed down my throat by believers. At the same time, I refuse to accept the "I know with 100% certainty that no god exists" arguments from atheists - that's a mirror position and, as such, [almost] as bad ...
What test (leading to what evidence) can there be for the existence of "a supernatural God"?
Is there really no evidence yet? Or are we simply not capable of recognising it yet?
I will not have religion rammed down my throat by believers. At the same time, I refuse to accept the "I know with 100% certainty that no god exists" arguments from atheists - that's a mirror position and, as such, [almost] as bad ...
Attepting to answer your question Naomi ,the existence of life is the rational reason for "a supernatural force" - let's call it "God" .
God is the difference between life and an inanimate object . A living object can develop , think for itself , evolve , learn something new every day .Even the simplest life forms , say a fly . Compare that to an inanimate object say a stone or a rock . Go to pick up a stone to examine it . Now go to pick up a fly to examine it . Convinced ?
God is the difference between life and an inanimate object . A living object can develop , think for itself , evolve , learn something new every day .Even the simplest life forms , say a fly . Compare that to an inanimate object say a stone or a rock . Go to pick up a stone to examine it . Now go to pick up a fly to examine it . Convinced ?
You are of course totally right about the "I know God doesn't exist" position - it is one of faith
Rationalism relies on past experience - if that is not valid the position is undermine.
That's falsifiability - you have to have a test that will make you change your mind
I'll recant if you show me an immortal soul but I've yet to see a Priest who'll admit to circumstances that'll make him admit he's wrong
Rationalism relies on past experience - if that is not valid the position is undermine.
That's falsifiability - you have to have a test that will make you change your mind
I'll recant if you show me an immortal soul but I've yet to see a Priest who'll admit to circumstances that'll make him admit he's wrong
Jake, sorry to read about your father.
Isn't any test based on a human soul also a conceit? We may not be the centre of the universe, or even the most powerful things in it.
We're not talking religion here - I'm an irreligious agnostic - we're talking the existence of "a supernatural God", and atheists' insistence that they are 100% sure that such a being does not exist as being "rational" based on "proof" such as "I have seen no evidence". Yet super powerful aliens elsewhere in the universe may have discovered such an entity millennia ago, and we need to develop into such powerful beings ourselves before we have a chance ...
Isn't any test based on a human soul also a conceit? We may not be the centre of the universe, or even the most powerful things in it.
We're not talking religion here - I'm an irreligious agnostic - we're talking the existence of "a supernatural God", and atheists' insistence that they are 100% sure that such a being does not exist as being "rational" based on "proof" such as "I have seen no evidence". Yet super powerful aliens elsewhere in the universe may have discovered such an entity millennia ago, and we need to develop into such powerful beings ourselves before we have a chance ...
I'm referring to the OP jomifl.
> "If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason"
I disagree with that premise. As an agnostic, I have not heard a rational reason for having no belief in a supernatural God, i.e. being 100% sure that a supernatural God does not exist.
> "If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason"
I disagree with that premise. As an agnostic, I have not heard a rational reason for having no belief in a supernatural God, i.e. being 100% sure that a supernatural God does not exist.
Actually, no, we are not talking about the existence of a supernatural god – well, at least we’re not supposed to be. We’re supposed to be talking about reason – but that seems to have gone by the board. Maybe I’ll post it again at a later date, so do please carry on chaps. Good discussion, so more power to your collective elbows. :o)
Ellipsis, Your comparison between the Higgs bosom particle and the possible existence of a supernatural god doesn’t work. You have to make your mind up. Are you talking about the natural or the supernatural?
Jom is right. The idea that atheists declare that they are 100% certain that there is no god is a fallacy.
Agrostan, I don’t believe that the existence of life is evidence for a supernatural force. Why would I? We may not be able to explain the existence of life down to the nth degree, but it doesn’t mean we never will and it is not a reason to attribute the unknown to the unknown. That would be guessing.
As Jake knows, I disagree with him on the possible existence of the soul.... which leads me on to .....
David, //You can have one without the other, just imagine someone seeing a TV set 1000 years ago for example. That would seem like magic but totally man made using the current knowledge of science. Quantum physics is now finding more and more phenomena previously thought impossible, and no doubt will eventually be seen at all levels above the quantum. But still no inference of god.//
A man after my own heart.
Incidentally, I have never said ‘I know God doesn’t exist’. I have, however, said that I am totally convinced that the God of Abraham is not the almighty creator – and for that there is ample evidence. Therein lies the real problem.
Ellipsis, Your comparison between the Higgs bosom particle and the possible existence of a supernatural god doesn’t work. You have to make your mind up. Are you talking about the natural or the supernatural?
Jom is right. The idea that atheists declare that they are 100% certain that there is no god is a fallacy.
Agrostan, I don’t believe that the existence of life is evidence for a supernatural force. Why would I? We may not be able to explain the existence of life down to the nth degree, but it doesn’t mean we never will and it is not a reason to attribute the unknown to the unknown. That would be guessing.
As Jake knows, I disagree with him on the possible existence of the soul.... which leads me on to .....
David, //You can have one without the other, just imagine someone seeing a TV set 1000 years ago for example. That would seem like magic but totally man made using the current knowledge of science. Quantum physics is now finding more and more phenomena previously thought impossible, and no doubt will eventually be seen at all levels above the quantum. But still no inference of god.//
A man after my own heart.
Incidentally, I have never said ‘I know God doesn’t exist’. I have, however, said that I am totally convinced that the God of Abraham is not the almighty creator – and for that there is ample evidence. Therein lies the real problem.
> Ellipsis, Your comparison between the Higgs bosom particle and the possible existence of a supernatural god doesn’t work. You have to make your mind up. Are you talking about the natural or the supernatural?
I'm talking about your "rational reason" that you have no evidence of a supernatural God being evidence of the non-existence of a supernatural God as being, in fact, irrational.
I'm saying you haven't even looked, nor defined what you'd look for.
I'm saying you probably wouldn't know a supernatural God if you fell over one - and that goes for all humankind ...
I'm talking about your "rational reason" that you have no evidence of a supernatural God being evidence of the non-existence of a supernatural God as being, in fact, irrational.
I'm saying you haven't even looked, nor defined what you'd look for.
I'm saying you probably wouldn't know a supernatural God if you fell over one - and that goes for all humankind ...
A couple of points that are worth addressing, I think.
1. Atheism is only irrational in precisely the same way that a lack of belief in mermaids, unicorns, fairies,hobbits, elves etc. is irrational.Atheism is a rational response to an extraordinary claim - that there is/was an omnipotent, supernatural being that created the universe and all that is in it.
2. Agnosticism seems on the surface to be a more reasonable position to take. - People are drawn to that position by the perception that it is a less dogmatic, more reasonable position to take. At its heart is the precept that humanity cannot either prove or disprove gods existence, and that therefore each position is equally valid.
This is the problem with agnosticism.There are hundreds of variants of godhood, spread across many diferent religions, almost all of which have their own variant of a creation story.In all of these though, it is gods hand that reaches out and affects the universe.So, if events could be identified that have no identifiable natural cause, one could suppose that this was the action of god.
It seems to me that any rational, reasonable person would think that an omniscient,supernatural being that can reach out and manipulate the universe, respond to intercessory prayer, and looks after immortal souls - all these are extraordinary claims. The rational response to an extraordinary claim is to ask for the extraordinary evidence - and this is where religion falls down - because that evidence is nowhere to be seen.
Miracles? Weeping statues,apparitions, stigmata - plenty have been recorded, but the vast majority are poorly documented and the evidence for them is poor.There is, for example, currently a guy in India facing arrest for showing that the "tears" of a weeping statue was actually sewage from a blocked drain - so the catholic church in India press charges of "deliberately hurting religious feelings".
Geocentricity was an important tenet of religion, defined by scripture - Disproven by Copernicus and Galileo, but not officially dropped by the catholic church until mid to late 1800s? Not until the 1990s did the Pope offer a papal pardon to Galileo.
This illustrates an important part of the debate. Science, rationality, reason, changes with evidence - religion attempts to "reinterpret" the evidence to support scripture, and will dogmatically cling to scriptural precepts instead.
Science has been a powerful tool in advancing human development.It has, gradually and remorselessly, refuted all those things claimed by religion to be proof of gods existence, supernatural creation and continual monitoring and oversight.
Whilst we cannot explicitly prove gods existence or non existence at the moment,our knowledge expands with each passing generation - so there is no reason to suppose that at some time in the future we could arrive at a definitive test.What we can show, is that each of those claims held up by the religious as proof of god is gradually eroded.
Given these conditions, it would seem the only rational position to adopt is atheism.Indeed, for theists, faith is a badge of honour - and faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
1. Atheism is only irrational in precisely the same way that a lack of belief in mermaids, unicorns, fairies,hobbits, elves etc. is irrational.Atheism is a rational response to an extraordinary claim - that there is/was an omnipotent, supernatural being that created the universe and all that is in it.
2. Agnosticism seems on the surface to be a more reasonable position to take. - People are drawn to that position by the perception that it is a less dogmatic, more reasonable position to take. At its heart is the precept that humanity cannot either prove or disprove gods existence, and that therefore each position is equally valid.
This is the problem with agnosticism.There are hundreds of variants of godhood, spread across many diferent religions, almost all of which have their own variant of a creation story.In all of these though, it is gods hand that reaches out and affects the universe.So, if events could be identified that have no identifiable natural cause, one could suppose that this was the action of god.
It seems to me that any rational, reasonable person would think that an omniscient,supernatural being that can reach out and manipulate the universe, respond to intercessory prayer, and looks after immortal souls - all these are extraordinary claims. The rational response to an extraordinary claim is to ask for the extraordinary evidence - and this is where religion falls down - because that evidence is nowhere to be seen.
Miracles? Weeping statues,apparitions, stigmata - plenty have been recorded, but the vast majority are poorly documented and the evidence for them is poor.There is, for example, currently a guy in India facing arrest for showing that the "tears" of a weeping statue was actually sewage from a blocked drain - so the catholic church in India press charges of "deliberately hurting religious feelings".
Geocentricity was an important tenet of religion, defined by scripture - Disproven by Copernicus and Galileo, but not officially dropped by the catholic church until mid to late 1800s? Not until the 1990s did the Pope offer a papal pardon to Galileo.
This illustrates an important part of the debate. Science, rationality, reason, changes with evidence - religion attempts to "reinterpret" the evidence to support scripture, and will dogmatically cling to scriptural precepts instead.
Science has been a powerful tool in advancing human development.It has, gradually and remorselessly, refuted all those things claimed by religion to be proof of gods existence, supernatural creation and continual monitoring and oversight.
Whilst we cannot explicitly prove gods existence or non existence at the moment,our knowledge expands with each passing generation - so there is no reason to suppose that at some time in the future we could arrive at a definitive test.What we can show, is that each of those claims held up by the religious as proof of god is gradually eroded.
Given these conditions, it would seem the only rational position to adopt is atheism.Indeed, for theists, faith is a badge of honour - and faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works3 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News3 mins ago
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |