Theism is irrationnal?

[RichardT]

I've heard it say by atheists that it is up to the theist to prove that God exists, except the way I see it, the atheist doesn't know everything about the physical universe and how it got here, so couldn't God be a working hypothesis?

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it? Untill further research shows that it actually has a natural explanation?

 

[livingone]

I've heard it say by atheists that it is up to the theist to prove that God exists, except the way I see it, the atheist doesn't know everything about the physical universe and how it got here, so couldn't God be a working hypothesis?

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it? Untill further research shows that it actually has a natural explanation?

The key to life is the question answered. Who cares if there is a God or if the universe was created. Obviously the universe was created. It had to come from somewhere. But who really cares. People have been asking these questions forever. Is there a God? Well he's not here so who cares if there is a God. Does it really matter if there is a God? Every Christian wants to meet God. Why? What's so special about God? The existence of God doesn't really matter to me. People who place gods over themselves do so out of fear. If man was created in the image of God then God sucks. So who cares if there is a God?
People want a God so that their dreams and desires will be fulfilled. That's why people believe in God. So some God comes with a sword in his hand saying I am God. If you don't believe in me then you are going to hell. The Lord Jesus Christ with a sword in hand--he came not to cast peace but division: fire sword and war. Why should I believe that this is the image of God. Out of fear? Fear the Lord's strong hand. What kind of God places fear in another's heart?
There is nothing I hate more than a God with a God complex. He says I am the sum of all value--that 2000 year old dragon. Prince of peace, you call him. I call him the God of war, that old serpent who is the devil and Satan who deceived all the nations. I'm not that stupid just look at what Christendom has done.

 

[RichardT]

Your religous symbol is christian, I would get that changed...

 

[RichardT]

Obviously the universe was created. It had to come from somewhere

"Occam's razor disagrees"

I don't like seeing this argument as proof of God's existence, simply because it doesn't work.

 

[The Nihilist]

I've heard it say by atheists that it is up to the theist to prove that God exists, except the way I see it, the atheist doesn't know everything about the physical universe and how it got here, so couldn't God be a working hypothesis?

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it? Untill further research shows that it actually has a natural explanation?

"God did it," was a working hypothesis for about a thousand years. The screwy part about it is that everything ascribed to God was discovered to be a natural process. God doesn't need to make corrections in the orbits of the planets, he doesn't need to make sure sperm hits an egg, he doesn't need to make rain happen. It would be a credible working hypothesis if it was ever right.

 

[RichardT]

"God did it," was a working hypothesis for about a thousand years. The screwy part about it is that everything ascribed to God was discovered to be a natural process. God doesn't need to make corrections in the orbits of the planets, he doesn't need to make sure sperm hits an egg, he doesn't need to make rain happen. It would be a credible working hypothesis if it was ever right.

When men didn't know how babies were born, or how rain happened, it would have been perfectly fine to attribute these things to the divine since there was no evidence to the contrary, couldn't this work for things we don't understand today?

I don't like how atheists think that the theist has to prove positively that there is a God when the atheist can't explain the physical universe without one and blames it on ignorance. The burden of proof shouldn't be on the theist for this simple reason.

 

[realitychick]

When men didn't know how babies were born, or how rain happened, it would have been perfectly fine to attribute these things to the divine since there was no evidence to the contrary, couldn't this work for things we don't understand today?

You just want "god" to be the explaination for what we don't understand today? What would be the incentive for trying to figure things out if we all settled for "god"?

I don't like how atheists think that the theist has to prove positively that there is a God when the atheist can't explain the physical universe without one and blames it on ignorance. The burden of proof shouldn't be on the theist for this simple reason.

Well sure it should. It's like your saying because I don't have an atomic brain with all the knowledge of the universe in it then God should be a valid explaination for everything. There is no actual evidence of god and you yourself just said that you want him there to explain the unexplainable. Obviously his role in the universe is going to keep getting smaller and we learn more. But not everyone is going to believe what we learn. Some people today dont beleive in evolution so its not even a matter of what we know or dont know. Its a matter of what people want to believe. And if you want to believe there is a god as described by the bible then you should offer up something.

 

[plindboe]

I've heard it say by atheists that it is up to the theist to prove that God exists, except the way I see it, the atheist doesn't know everything about the physical universe and how it got here, so couldn't God be a working hypothesis?

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it? Untill further research shows that it actually has a natural explanation?

Why couldn't we say that the giant green bunnywabbit did it? Would you call that irrational? Without proper evidence, there are infinite possibilities. So why insist on one of them? Why is it so difficult to admit that you don't know?

Peter

 

[Blackguard_]

When men didn't know how babies were born, or how rain happened, it would have been perfectly fine to attribute these things to the divine since there was no evidence to the contrary, couldn't this work for things we don't understand today?

NO!!! The God of the Gaps is a horrible, horrible thing. Why are you trying to divorce God from his creation? How does it necessarily follow that something with a scientific reason behind cannot have God involved in any way? For example, God being behind the laws of the universe scientifc inquiry is uncovering? That is where Ockham's Razor comes in. (Ockham used the idea to show the necessity of faith, BTW)

Please don't write off natural phenomenon as beyond the realm of God. It's not like he created the universe or anything.

The idea of the God of the Gaps robs God of his power. Realitychick can see it...

Obviously his role in the universe is going to keep getting smaller and we learn more

Is God weaker than natural processes? If not, why do you limit God to being only an explainer of the unkown?

What are you going to do when the things unknown today are known tomorrow?

You just want "god" to be the explaination for what we don't understand today? What would be the incentive for trying to figure things out if we all settled for "god"?

almost spot on. Having God merely be an explainer for the unknown is a very bad idea. As for the other part, it depends on the conception of God. If you believe the world is ruled by a capricious god there is no point in investigating nature, but if you beleive God created an orderly creation, I see it as quite encouraging to scientific inquiry as investigation of God's creation.

 

[MedicMan]

You just want "god" to be the explaination for what we don't understand today? What would be the incentive for trying to figure things out if we all settled for "god"?

Because if, after we have tried everything, we still cannot find an answer to the problem, the only logical solution is to accept that God caused it. Physicists have yet to find the General Unified Theory (maths to explain everything, including the Big Bang and physics at the speed of light). However, they will continue searching for ever, because they are convinced that they are in the right. They have been looking for a long time now - surely, after all this time, it would be a reasonable conclusion for them to draw that there simply is no GUT?

If you believe the world is ruled by a capricious god there is no point in investigating nature, but if you beleive God created an orderly creation, I see it as quite encouraging to scientific inquiry as investigation of God's creation.

Since God created science, and gave us the faculties to understand and investigate it, surely it brings us closer to He who made us by attempting to understand His creation.

I don't like how atheists think that the theist has to prove positively that there is a God when the atheist can't explain the physical universe without one and blames it on ignorance. The burden of proof shouldn't be on the theist for this simple reason.

Very, very true. Atheistic science is no more proven than any theories of religion - yet it is seen as an infinitely more preferable solution. Why should the onus not be on the atheist to prove the non-existence of God?

~MedicMan~

 

[Upisoft]

I've heard it say by atheists that it is up to the theist to prove that God exists, except the way I see it, the atheist doesn't know everything about the physical universe and how it got here, so couldn't God be a working hypothesis?

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it? Untill further research shows that it actually has a natural explanation?

It is up to you to prove God existence, if you want to bring him into science. You can hypothesize as long as you wish, but that is not science. And, BTW, how can "GODDIDIT" hypothesis be useful? Can you create faster computer with that hypothesis? All you can do with it is to "explain" unknown. And the science is not interested in useless explanations.

 

[livingone]

Your religous symbol is christian, I would get that changed...

Why does that confuse you?

 

[RichardT]

You just want "god" to be the explaination for what we don't understand today? What would be the incentive for trying to figure things out if we all settled for "god"?

Why wouldn't there be an incentive? It would allow you to show our version of God wrong.

 

[RichardT]

Why does that confuse you?

Because you don't seem to be a christian.

 

[ehehe]

Because if, after we have tried everything, we still cannot find an answer to the problem, the only logical solution is to accept that God caused it.

And I suppose you would be the one to define "everything"?

Physicists have yet to find the General Unified Theory (maths to explain everything, including the Big Bang and physics at the speed of light). However, they will continue searching for ever, because they are convinced that they are in the right. They have been looking for a long time now - surely, after all this time, it would be a reasonable conclusion for them to draw that there simply is no GUT?

Er, and how many thousands of years have people been trying to prove the existence of a god? Work on UFT only started recently. I'm getting really sick of this so-called Christian impatience. Today isn't the last day of all time.

Why should the onus not be on the atheist to prove the non-existence of God?

Because logic doesn't work that way.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Very, very true. Atheistic science is no more proven than any theories of religion - yet it is seen as an infinitely more preferable solution. Why should the onus not be on the atheist to prove the non-existence of God?

~MedicMan~

No problem. In the meantime, you could start proving the non-existence of Vishnu, Allah, Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. After all, they're all acceptable alternatives to your god, now that "existence" is the default position.

 

[Tynan]

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it? Untill further research shows that it actually has a natural explanation?

Richard, to help you better understand the atheist position simply replace the word 'God' with the word 'Poseidon'.

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say Poseidon did it? Untill further research shows that it actually has a natural explanation?

Does that sound in any way reasonable to you ?

 

[Tynan]

Because if, after we have tried everything, we still cannot find an answer to the problem, the only logical solution is to accept that God caused it.

MedicMan, you say it is right that when you cannot find an answer to a problem you should simply accept that Posiden caused it.

And you wish to put forward the idea that this is not only a logical solution but the only logical solution ?

Physicists have yet to find the General Unified Theory (maths to explain everything, including the Big Bang and physics at the speed of light). However, they will continue searching for ever, because they are convinced that they are in the right. They have been looking for a long time now - surely, after all this time, it would be a reasonable conclusion for them to draw that there simply is no GUT?

It may take a 300 years, maybe ten thousand years, where does the desire in you to stop the search come from ?

Very, very true. Atheistic science is no more proven than any theories of religion - yet it is seen as an infinitely more preferable solution. Why should the onus not be on the atheist to prove the non-existence of God?

There is no such thing as Atheistic science.

You also seem to think that the onus of proof should rest on the non-believer, for he or she to disprove the thing they do not believe to be true ?

If we were to adopt this Nonsensical agenda driven logic would you accept that there is an onus on the Christian to prove the non-existence of the following gods ? . . .

Agdistis

Angdistis

Ah Puch

Ahura Mazda

Alberich

Amaterasu

An

Anat

Andvari

Anshar

Anu

Aphrodite

Apollo

Apsu

Ares

Artemis

Asclepius

Athena

Athirat

Athtart

Atlas

Baal

Ba Xian

Bacchus

Balder

Bast

Bellona

Bergelmir

Bes

Bixia Yuanjin

Bragi

Brahma

Brigit

Camaxtli

Ceres

Ceridwen

Cernunnos

Chac

Chalchiuhtlicue

Charun

Cheng-huang

Cybele

Dagon

Damkina (Dumkina)

Davlin

Demeter

Diana

Di Cang

Dionysus

Ea

El

Enki

Enlil

Epona

Ereskigal

Farbauti

Fenrir

Forseti

Freya

Freyr

Frigg

Gaia

Ganesha

Ganga

Garuda

Gauri

Geb

Geong Si

Hades

Hanuman

Helios

Heng-o (Chang-o)

Hephaestus

Hera

Hermes

Hod

Hoderi

Hoori

Horus

Hotei

Hestia

Huitzilopochtli

Hsi-Wang-Mu

Hygeia

Inanna

Inti

Ishtar

Isis

Ixtab

Izanaki

Izanami

Juno

Jupiter

Kagutsuchi

Kartikeya

Khepri

Ki

Kingu

Kinich Ahau

Kishar

Krishna

Kukulcan

Lakshmi

Liza

Loki

Lugh

Magna Mater

Marduk

Mars

Medb

Mercury

Mimir

Minerva

Mithras

Morrigan

Mot

Mummu

Nammu

Nanna

Nanna (Norse)

Nanse

Nemesis

Nephthys

Neptune

Nergal

Ninazu

Ninhurzag

Nintu

Ninurta

Njord

Nut

Odin

Ohkuninushi

Ohyamatsumi

Orgelmir

Osiris

Ostara

Pan

Parvati

Poseidon

Quetzalcoatl

Rama

Re

Rhea

Sabazius

Sarasvati

Shiva

Seshat

Seti (Set)

Shamash

Shapsu

Shen Yi

Shiva

Shu

Si-Wang-Mu

Sin

Sirona

Surya

Susanoh

Tawaret

Tefnut

Tezcatlipoca

Thanatos

Thor

Tiamat

Tlaloc

Tonatiuh

Toyo-Uke-Bime

Tyche

Tyr

Utu

Uzume

Venus

Vesta

Vishnu

Vulcan

Xipe

Xi Wang-mu

Xochipilli

Xochiquetzal

Yam

Yarikh

Ymir

Yu-huang

Yum Kimil

And finally Zeus

 

[RichardT]

When I used the word "God", maybe I should have used the word "divine"

 

[us38]

Because if, after we have tried everything, we still cannot find an answer to the problem, the only logical solution is to accept that God caused it.

That is never a logical solution! Answering one problem with another never solves anything. Inserting god is nothing more than moving where the unexplained is.