Why belief in god is irrational

[NLN]

Physicist Mano Singham makes the point that there are conditions under which it is not irrational to believe in things for which there is no evidence at all, but believing in other things—such as an afterlife—is irrational because to retain such beliefs requires one to create very complicated and implausible scenarios to explain the absence of any evidence in favor of them.

He argues that the following could be used as a test as to whether a belief that is sustained in the absence of evidence is rational or irrational:

• For a belief to be irrational, in order to sustain it one must argue for the existence of something that is in principle unknowable and also requires a deliberate scheme to conceal evidence of existence.

• For a belief to be rational it needs to be something that is unknown only in practice due to limitations of time or technology, but may become known in the future, and the absence of evidence is not due to willful deception by the very entity whose existence we seek.​

You can read the entire article here.

 

[ISeeTheLight]

You have a very good point, however you would rather trust man's words rather than the Word of God. I would rather believe in God and die and live a happy life than not believe in God and spend my life in hell. Heaven is something that man cannot understand. It is impossible for man to understand heaven exactly. I believe that heaven/hell does exist, because I believe 100% of the Word of God rather than a simple conclusion of man.

 

[Atheuz]

I'd believe the Word of God too if I didn't know he doesn't exist and that the "Word of God" was written by men aswell.

 

[Bianca87]

I'd believe the Word of God too if I didn't know he doesn't exist and that the "Word of God" was written by men aswell.

that's what i mean when i say that atheism is a religion, not that there is something wrong with this only you should accept it. The un existance of a god is a dogma as well, since you have no scientif proofs, is a belif.
and yes i think faith is irrational, since i don't know why i belive and i have no proofs of what i belive in, that's why it's called faith and not opionion or conclusion, but still if i had not this faith i think i would be an agnostic since is the only ractional belif of the many.


and just for the record, so you know who you are talking to, i would like to point out that i'm not this kind of christian

You have a very good point, however you would rather trust man's words rather than the Word of God. I would rather believe in God and die and live a happy life than not believe in God and spend my life in hell. Heaven is something that man cannot understand. It is impossible for man to understand heaven exactly. I believe that heaven/hell does exist, because I believe 100% of the Word of God rather than a simple conclusion of man

 

[EsseEstPercipi]

I would rather believe in God and die and live a happy life than not believe in God and spend my life in hell.

This sort of statement is a common one for Christians to fall back on, and I believe that there is some danger in it which should be addressed. The basis of this statement seems to be that preference for a certain opinion qualifies that opinion as truth. If we be are to believe this then man essentially creates the universe through his perception of it. I do not here mean merely the interior world of perception, but man creates the external world through preference. And while we can never truly know anything about the external world aside from our perceptions of it, assuming that those perceptions are correct and that there are billions of people in the world, it seems improbable that your preference will effect the origins of the universe.

and yes i think faith is irrational, since i don't know why i belive and i have no proofs of what i belive in, that's why it's called faith and not opionion or conclusion, but still if i had not this faith i think i would be an agnostic since is the only ractional belif of the many.

If you have no proof and no idea why you believe it then it seems that one should decide not to believe it. I can go a step further and say that unless you underwent some sort of religious experience that the reason for your belief lies in tradition and social factors. I do not know about you, but if you are like the majority of religious practitioners you are your faith because you are following the ideas of your parents. You believe because you have been told, since you were a child incapable of rational analysis of the things told to you as facts that they were true. Combine this with confirmation on the part of the majority of society, and the strong feeling of belief can be accounted for. I was raised a Christian, but it was thoughts similar to these which steered me away. I am an agnostic and not an atheist because, like you said, we can have no true knowledge of the creation of the world, but I lean toward atheism because it seems improbable that some sort of being which is basically a magnified version of human consciousness should rule the universe.

 

[tanzanos]

that's what i mean when i say that atheism is a religion, not that there is something wrong with this only you should accept it. The un existance of a god is a dogma as well, since you have no scientif proofs, is a belif.
and yes i think faith is irrational, since i don't know why i belive and i have no proofs of what i belive in, that's why it's called faith and not opionion or conclusion, but still if i had not this faith i think i would be an agnostic since is the only ractional belif of the many.


and just for the record, so you know who you are talking to, i would like to point out that i'm not this kind of christian

IF there is a God then I can only conclude that:
1: God is evil because God is an accessory to the unbelievable evil that exists. God turns a blind eye.

2: God is indifferent to the suffering of almost all living things including humans, and has forsaken this planet.

3: Lucifer (Satan) was God's right hand man. An archangel of all things. If God created him on purpose in order for him to fall then God committed a crime against humanity. If God did not know this would happen then God in not omnipotent and all wise.

I prefer not to believe in God. Why? Well if you can justify why a child is born deformed, Why a child dies of hunger, why a child suffers abuse, why a child is killed or mutilated in war, then I will accept your point. BUT! please do not say that the above are due to the sins of parents etc. A child has no sins. If you insist that it has then you might as well condemn them all to perish in the name or religion.

Ah how true Animal Farm turned out to be!

 

[leoj]

1: God is evil because God is an accessory to the unbelievable evil that exists. God turns a blind eye.

I guess you're saying this because "of all the suffering in the world"? If so then you should know that in Genesis man sinned, and God cursed man. Sickness, disease, etc is a result of that curse. As a Christian, I believe that through Jesus' death on the cross we have been redeemed from the curse, but it is our choice, it aint automatic!

2: God is indifferent to the suffering of almost all living things including humans, and has forsaken this planet.

This is kinda repeating your first point. God hasn't forsaken us, otherwise why would there be Christians here today that speak to God daily in prayer? Also the sick get healed by the power of Jesus, so God still cares!

3: Lucifer (Satan) was God's right hand man. An archangel of all things. If God created him on purpose in order for him to fall then God committed a crime against humanity. If God did not know this would happen then God in not omnipotent and all wise.

This is an interesting point... The idea of God being omniscient is hard to grasp because we have no knowledge on how God would perceive the omniscience.
As it says in the Bible, "God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts." While this may just sound like some petty excuse, if you think about it, it makes sense, as who are we to know how the mind of our creator works?
One possibility is that God's omniscience works in that he can see all possible outcomes, satan had a free will and he decided to disobey God.
Really the answer to this question of God's omniscience is dependant on doctrines, so really the answer isn't absolute (I'm sure a quick Google search will give you a plethora of different answers!).

Well if you can justify why a child is born deformed, Why a child dies of hunger, why a child suffers abuse, why a child is killed or mutilated in war, then I will accept your point. BUT! please do not say that the above are due to the sins of parents etc. A child has no sins.

This is not due to the sins of the parents, but due to man's ORIGINAL sin, which I mentioned before. When man sinned he gave over dominion of the planet to satan, so he is the one you should be blaming for children's deaths, etc.

If you insist that it has then you might as well condemn them all to perish in the name or religion.

I don't really get what you're trying to say here... Why would we condemn all these people "in the name" or religion??

 

[Travis St. Hubbins]

I would rather believe in God and die and live a happy life than not believe in God and spend my life in hell. Heaven is something that man cannot understand.

Pascal's Wager alert. Your reasoning is circular. You are assuming your conclusions. If we assume the existence of God, Heaven and Hell then I should think everyone would agree with you. However, there is no evidence supporting their existence so we cannot safely make those assumptions. Also, there are a vast number of other god concepts (Muslim, Hindu, etc.) that could possibly be true. Therefore you could be believing in the wrong god and still end up in hell.

that's what i mean when i say that atheism is a religion, not that there is something wrong with this only you should accept it. The un existance of a god is a dogma as well, since you have no scientif proofs, is a belif.
and yes i think faith is irrational, since i don't know why i belive and i have no proofs of what i belive in, that's why it's called faith and not opionion or conclusion, but still if i had not this faith i think i would be an agnostic since is the only ractional belif of the many.

Atheism is not a religion any more than bald is a hair-colour, to use a cliché. As the OP points out it is the lack of empirical evidence that makes a non-belief in the supernatural a rational position. It is not a belief so much as a logical and rational conclusion based on the evidence, or lack thereof. Non-belief in gods is not religion any more than a non-belief in pixies, unicorns, vampires, white rabbits with pocket watches, etc. is a religion.

To put it another way, atheists don't believe in pixies and unicorns for the same reason as you, there's no evidence. If I were to ask you whether or not goblins exist you'd probably say "no". This is because if there is no evidence for something then it is reasonable to say it does not exist. However we, rational atheists, are not selective about what we apply this reasoning to. We can't make exceptions. We can't say: "it is reasonable to say something doesn't exist because there is no evidence of it, except for this one thing that we say does exist despite the lack of evidence because we would like it to be true". It simply isn't intellectually honest.

I guess you're saying this because "of all the suffering in the world"? If so then you should know that in Genesis man sinned, and God cursed man. Sickness, disease, etc is a result of that curse. As a Christian, I believe that through Jesus' death on the cross we have been redeemed from the curse, but it is our choice, it aint automatic!

God cursed all of mankind for the actions of one man? That doesn't sound very fair or just to me. If all Christians, for example, were tarred with the same brush for the actions of a few fundamentalist lunatics there'd be cries of foul play and persecution. That's what irks me about this theology, that Christians will, on one hand, say God is good and just, while on the other hand say mankind (even the whole universe) has been cursed, by God, because of one man. Seems entirely contradictory to me.

This is kinda repeating your first point. God hasn't forsaken us, otherwise why would there be Christians here today that speak to God daily in prayer? Also the sick get healed by the power of Jesus, so God still cares!

Why are there Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc. that speak to their gods daily in prayer? Please provide some evidence that people are healed by the power of Jesus otherwise I'm going to have to suggest that you've made that up in order to prove your point, ad hoc style.

This is not due to the sins of the parents, but due to man's ORIGINAL sin, which I mentioned before. When man sinned he gave over dominion of the planet to satan, so he is the one you should be blaming for children's deaths, etc.

Man gave dominion of the world to Satan? Are your sure about this? A minute ago you said it was because we were cursed by God. Why would a loving god let mankind, who had no knowledge of right and wrong before he ate the forbidden fruit, hand his creation over to a being of ultimate evil? I get the feeling you're making this up as you go along.

 

[tanzanos]

This is not due to the sins of the parents, but due to man's ORIGINAL sin, which I mentioned before. When man sinned he gave over dominion of the planet to satan, so he is the one you should be blaming for children's deaths, etc.

OH! I see. So God punishes SOME children while sparing other children all in the name of ORIGINAL SIN? Please explain why third world children bear the brunt of the punishment and not the children of the rich especially in the West?
No wonder there is so much evil; there will always be people who will justify evil in the name of God.


Jesus was so right when he uttered:
"Hypocrites and Pharisees".

 

[leoj]

Whoa! 2 against 1 !

God cursed all of mankind for the actions of one man? That doesn't sound very fair or just to me. ...That's what irks me about this theology, that Christians will, on one hand, say God is good and just, while on the other hand say mankind (even the whole universe) has been cursed, by God, because of one man. Seems entirely contradictory to me.

God cursed Adam & Eve which meant that all their descendants were cursed, but what I was trying to get across was that he gave a way for us to get redeemed from this curse through Jesus' death on the cross.

If all Christians, for example, were tarred with the same brush for the actions of a few fundamentalist lunatics there'd be cries of foul play and persecution.

No all Christians wouldn't get tarred because through Jesus, we can be forgiven. Also that is a different scenario - Adam & Eve were the only people on earth when they sinned, so they passed the curse down to their future generations.

Why are there Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc. that speak to their gods daily in prayer? Please provide some evidence that people are healed by the power of Jesus otherwise I'm going to have to suggest that you've made that up in order to prove your point, ad hoc style.

No I haven't "made it up" to prove my point. I guess you want specific examples; in fact there have been studies done like this one:

"393 patients, admitted to the coronary care unit at San Francisco General Hospital, over a 10 month period were randomly selected, by computer, to either a 201 patient control group or the 192 patients who were prayed for daily by 5-7 people in home prayer groups. This was a randomized, double-blind experiment in which neither the patients, nurses, nor doctors knew which group the patients were in."

And the results:
"1) None of those prayed for required endotracheal intubation compared with twelve in the control group requiring the insertion of an artificial airway in the throat.

2) The prayed for group experienced fewer cases of pneumonia and cardiopulmonary arrests.

3) Those prayed for were five times less likely to require antibiotics.

4) The prayed for group were three times less likely to develop pulmonary edema, a condition where the lungs fill with fluid.

5) Fewer patients in the prayed for group died."

I think that's pretty good evidence!

Man gave dominion of the world to Satan? Are your sure about this? A minute ago you said it was because we were cursed by God. Why would a loving god let mankind, who had no knowledge of right and wrong before he ate the forbidden fruit, hand his creation over to a being of ultimate evil?

Well both points really go hand in hand... Adam was originally given dominion over all God's creation , when he was tempted by satan, he gave this dominion over to him (as shown in Luke 4:6 - "...for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to."[satan speaking to Jesus]) through his sin.

Man did have knowledge of right and wrong, as God told Adam:

"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

So he knew that it was wrong to do what he did.

I get the feeling you're making this up as you go along.

I think remarks are this are utterly pointless. It doesn't add anything to your argument.

OH! I see. So God punishes SOME children while sparing other children all in the name of ORIGINAL SIN?

No you can't reverse my statement. This is what I was saying... point by point:

• God has cursed us ALL
• Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from the curse
• Those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour are released from the curse

Please explain why third world children bear the brunt of the punishment and not the children of the rich especially in the West?

Hmm this is an interesting question. One thing that comes to mind is the countries in the West were mainly founded on Christian beliefs, and following my previous reasoning, this would mean they were free from the curse. Most third world countries aren't "Christian" but rather slaves of the idols they worship. I guess this could be one explanation...

No wonder there is so much evil; there will always be people who will justify evil in the name of God.

Errr.... I didn't justify evil in the name of God! Please explain what you mean; I said that it is satan who has dominion over the world (unless you're a Christian, which gives you dominion over satan) and therefore it is him who causes all this suffering.

Jesus was so right when he uttered:
"Hypocrites and Pharisees".

Now this is just getting strangely contradictory... You're speaking out against Christianity and belief in God, yet you quote Jesus - the son of God! This quote was also directed at the religious leaders in the temple in Jerusalem - not at Christians. In fact it was Jesus' followers who "started" Christianity, so why would this be directed at Christians??

 

[tanzanos]

Hmm this is an interesting question. One thing that comes to mind is the countries in the West were mainly founded on Christian beliefs, and following my previous reasoning, this would mean they were free from the curse. Most third world countries aren't "Christian" but rather slaves of the idols they worship. I guess this could be one explanation...

Excuse me but there are more Christians in third world countries then are in the USA. In the Middle East christian children also suffer with their Muslim brothers. We all know Christianity was born in the Middle East yet it is one of the most oppressed area on this planet. You have to be very naive to believe that a rich American child is spared because his country was colonised by Christians; and an African child is being punished simply because his ancestors were pagan. Christians have killed more Christians than any other religious army has. By the way; Muslims pray to the same God as you and they also accept Jesus as a prophet.

Also the experiment with the people who prayed only proves that the act of prayer is slightly beneficial. One could sincerely pray to mickey mouse and still have the same beneficial results.

As for my contradiction in beliefs; well I believe in what Jesus tried to do as much as I believe in what Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi did as well. All 3 were humans who cared for humanity. Jesus was only a human nothing more. God on the other hand is an entity I refuse to believe in. Have you witnessed death by hunger of a child personally? Have you witnessed someone being killed. Because I have I stopped believing in God. I refuse to partake in anything evil.

 

[leoj]

Excuse me but there are more Christians in third world countries then are in the USA.

Well... "Christian" is a very broad term. There are a lot of people who think that going to church or doing "good works" makes them a Christian...

In the Middle East christian children also suffer with their Muslim brothers. We all know Christianity was born in the Middle East yet it is one of the most oppressed area on this planet.

Breaking the curse is a result of true faith and believing that God can get you through your suffering. If you just say some half-hearted prayer, you can't expect results.

You have to be very naive to believe that a rich American child is spared because his country was colonised by Christians;

That's not what I was saying. I meant that the country was founded on Christian beliefs so the original founders were free from the curse. And this prosperity which comes as a result has been passed down to some extent. I don't think that an American child is "spared" (whatever that's supposed to mean?) simply because his country was colonised by Christians, but I think this foundation in Christianity is probably something for the American child to be grateful for.

and an African child is being punished simply because his ancestors were pagan.

You've reversed it again! An African child isn't being "punished" as such, any more than our future generation would be "punished" for us causing global warming. I'm saying that satan has dominion over the world at this moment and satan comes to "steal, kill and destroy", so it is him who causes the suffering of these children. The pagan ancestors have been worshipping the devil, which gives him a greater foothold in their lives.

Christians have killed more Christians than any other religious army has.

Back to my point earlier... there are many who call themselves "Christian".

By the way; Muslims pray to the same God as you and they also accept Jesus as a prophet.

I personally do not believe that they pray to the same God, and there are several reasons why:

• Islam denies that God is a Trinity.
• Muslims deem worship of the Trinity to be polytheistic and thus blasphemous. Worship of Jesus — whom they deem only human — is anathema.
• Islam also rejects that God became a man in Jesus Christ.
• Islam denies that humans have a deeply sinful human nature, claiming that we sin because we are merely weak and ignorant.
• Christianity teaches that salvation is secured only through faith in the achievements of Jesus Christ — his life, death, and resurrection (John 3:16-18). Islam, however, implores its followers to obey the laws of the Qur'an in the hopes that they will be found worthy of paradise.

I think it's fair enough to admit we're believing in a different God!

Because I have I stopped believing in God. I refuse to partake in anything evil.

I'm sorry I really don't get what you mean here!

 

[tanzanos]

Well... "Christian" is a very broad term. There are a lot of people who think that going to church or doing "good works" makes them a Christian...

Breaking the curse is a result of true faith and believing that God can get you through your suffering. If you just say some half-hearted prayer, you can't expect results.

My sincere apologies. I admit defeat. You are totally correct. How could I be so stupid. You have convinced me of my inferiority. I Bow to the only people who will go to heaven. the chosen ones: WASPs. The rest of us don't have a chance in hell. After all Jesus was blonde blue eyed and SPOKE ENGLISH!
I only hope I can comfort the millions of non Anglo Saxon heritage children burning in fire and brimstone.

Beam me up Scotty! I'm out of here!

 

[leoj]

My sincere apologies. I admit defeat. You are totally correct. How could I be so stupid. You have convinced me of my inferiority.

Owned!! - only joking of course, it wasn't my intent to make you feel inferior or whatever. I was just trying to show you that your original statements can be opposed!

After all Jesus was blonde blue eyed and SPOKE ENGLISH!
I only hope I can comfort the millions of non Anglo Saxon heritage children burning in fire and brimstone.

Riiiiight.... First off, I don't believe Jesus was blonde, blue eyed and spoke english! More likely is that he was of a dark complection... and he most definitely didn't speak english, as he was a Jew, born in ISRAEL!! So he would've spoken Hebrew.

As to your strange comment about WASPs, I didn't say anything about having to be White or Anglosaxon or even Protestant! There are many, for example, Nigerian believers in Christ. Also sorry if I implied that Catholics or other denominations don't go to heaven or whatever...

 

[Lisa0315]

Physicist Mano Singham makes the point that there are conditions under which it is not irrational to believe in things for which there is no evidence at all, but believing in other things—such as an afterlife—is irrational because to retain such beliefs requires one to create very complicated and implausible scenarios to explain the absence of any evidence in favor of them.

He argues that the following could be used as a test as to whether a belief that is sustained in the absence of evidence is rational or irrational:

• For a belief to be irrational, in order to sustain it one must argue for the existence of something that is in principle unknowable and also requires a deliberate scheme to conceal evidence of existence.​

• For a belief to be rational it needs to be something that is unknown only in practice due to limitations of time or technology, but may become known in the future, and the absence of evidence is not due to willful deception by the very entity whose existence we seek.​

You can read the entire article here.

Christianity is rational based on #2. God can be known and is known, and will be made manifest to all in the future.

Lisa

 

[Edx]

Riiiiight.... First off, I don't believe Jesus was blonde, blue eyed and spoke english! More likely is that he was of a dark complection... and he most definitely didn't speak english, as he was a Jew, born in ISRAEL!! So he would've spoken Hebrew.

You know he was being sarcastic right?

 

[leoj]

Yup! I was just making sure that he knows where I stand!

 

[Travis St. Hubbins]

God cursed Adam & Eve which meant that all their descendants were cursed, but what I was trying to get across was that he gave a way for us to get redeemed from this curse through Jesus' death on the cross.

No all Christians wouldn't get tarred because through Jesus, we can be forgiven. Also that is a different scenario - Adam & Eve were the only people on earth when they sinned, so they passed the curse down to their future generations.

My point is: punishing a whole group of people for the actions of a few is distinctly unfair. We wouldn't allow it to happen in our society. The concept of punishing people for the actions of others does not fit anywhere in our definition of justice. Would you be happy if you were arrested and jailed for a crime committed by you grandfather? I wouldn't. So how do you reconcile the concept of a just god with your interpretation of Genesis?

No I haven't "made it up" to prove my point. I guess you want specific examples; in fact there have been studies done like this one:

"393 patients, admitted to the coronary care unit at San Francisco General Hospital, over a 10 month period were randomly selected, by computer, to either a 201 patient control group or the 192 patients who were prayed for daily by 5-7 people in home prayer groups. This was a randomized, double-blind experiment in which neither the patients, nurses, nor doctors knew which group the patients were in."

And the results:
"1) None of those prayed for required endotracheal intubation compared with twelve in the control group requiring the insertion of an artificial airway in the throat.

2) The prayed for group experienced fewer cases of pneumonia and cardiopulmonary arrests.

3) Those prayed for were five times less likely to require antibiotics.

4) The prayed for group were three times less likely to develop pulmonary edema, a condition where the lungs fill with fluid.

5) Fewer patients in the prayed for group died."

I think that's pretty good evidence!

Really? Then I'm afraid your standards for good evidence are not, in my opinion, particularly high. There are a number of problems with Dr. Byrd's study. This critique goes into detail about them, as does this one, this one and this one. I'll briefly cover a few of their points for those who don't have time to read them all.

Firstly, as Byrd himself acknowledges, he didn't actually have a control group because there was no way to prevent intercessory prayer from other parties. The group not receiving intercessory prayer from Byrd's home-prayer groups still had family and friends praying for them.

You mention five positive results from Byrd's study. Byrd measured a total of twenty-six variables. Of those twenty-six, twenty results showed there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. In other words you have hand-picked the results you likes; this is known as conformation bias.

The six variables Byrd considers to show significant difference: " 5 percent fewer patients needed diuretics, 7 percent fewer needed antibiotics, 6 percent fewer needed respiratory intubation and/or ventilation, 6 percent fewer developed congestive heart failure, 5 percent fewer developed pneumonia, and 5 percent fewer suffered cardiopulmonary arrest." are interrelated. Gary Posner MD says: " ...for instance, the development of congestive heart failure automatically leads to the need for diuretics; the development of pneumonia automatically requires the use of antibiotics; and the development of either would likely increase the risk of developing the other, of requiring intubation or ventilation, and of suffering cardiopulmonary arrest. Thus, the development of any single complication may automatically lead to a cascade of other complications and therapeutic interventions that cannot be considered independent events, rendering the significance of Byrd's data highly doubtful."

According to Byrd, the P-value was just under 0.05 for the six results he considered significant, 5 percent fewer patients needed diuretics, 7 percent fewer needed antibiotics, etc. which makes the statistical significance of these results highly marginal. Further doubt is cast by the fact that subsequent studies, eg the Harris prayer study at the Mid America Heart Institute, could not replicate Byrd's positive results.

Finally, there have been several other studies over the years that have tried to conclusively demonstrate the power of prayer. Most of them have not shown any significant difference between receiving prayer and not. A few, like Joyce and Welldon's 1965 study of rheumatics, have actually shown in some cases a negative significant difference; ie the group being prayed for actually ended up worse off. However, these differences, like Byrd's positive results, were marginal and are probably just an anomaly.

But let's not forget that you said you were going to provide evidence sick people are healed by the power of Jesus. So even if these studies ever do show a positive statistically significant difference you still have to show it was actually Jesus doing the healing. How would you test for the source of this healing power?

Well both points really go hand in hand... Adam was originally given dominion over all God's creation , when he was tempted by satan, he gave this dominion over to him (as shown in Luke 4:6 - "...for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to."[satan speaking to Jesus]) through his sin.

Wait a minute. Luke has Satan offer Jesus "the authority and splendour" of the "kingdoms of the world". I don't see how kingdoms of the world can be synonymous with all God's Creation. One is a man-made political structure, the other is the entire Universe. Luke also never mentions who gave this authority of the kingdoms to Satan. So i think it's a bit of a leap to assume it was Adam. And nowhere in Genesis does it say that the snake was Satan. Is there something I'm missing?

Man did have knowledge of right and wrong, as God told Adam:

"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

So he knew that it was wrong to do what he did.

That's not how I read it. He may have been told not to do something but without knowledge of good and evil, which he didn't have until after he ate the fruit, how could he have known it was wrong?

Anyway, back to the OP... Is there any rational reason to believe in a god?

 

[Phil4987]

that's what i mean when i say that atheism is a religion, not that there is something wrong with this only you should accept it. The un existance of a god is a dogma as well, since you have no scientif proofs, is a belif.
and yes i think faith is irrational, since i don't know why i belive and i have no proofs of what i belive in, that's why it's called faith and not opionion or conclusion, but still if i had not this faith i think i would be an agnostic since is the only ractional belif of the many.


and just for the record, so you know who you are talking to, i would like to point out that i'm not this kind of christian

Atheism, I will learn you it.

perfix: "a" = no/not/without, atheism is actually the opposite of theism, a nonbelief in God or gods.

Most atheists are agnostics and vice a versa. Of course you have your ignorant and fanatical atheists: "No God exists" "God or gods don't exist because there is PAAAAAIN!"

Belief in God is ALWAYS irrational, even my own including my own- agnostic Deism. Belief in heaven, a personal god, etc, are even more irrational and would only make me a fool.

 

[bukz]

Where is Jesus in the Discussion and Debate forum?