Why belief in god is irrational

[Travis St. Hubbins]

Where is Jesus in the Discussion and Debate forum?

He doesn't post here as often as he used to.

 

[crawfish]

• 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.​

The argument fails here, because it views that God - and the afterlife - are not undetected only due to the limitations of technology. It assumes that God (or evidence of God) cannot be discovered and thus, would only exist if he was trying to deceive us. This is bad logic.

However, I have no REAL problem accepting the irrationality of faith. There is definitely a point at which I must say, "I have no further evidence to take me down this path; I must choose to accept the rest of the path with no evidence".

I might argue that one could be completely rational while accepting an irrational belief. I'll have to think a little bit more about this one, but I do not want to derail the thread any further.

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

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.

i would submit that there are many more evidences for God, and that the bible in its original languages is true, than there are for the cause of the big bang

and if God can scientificly be proven the most rational of all theories, one is biased if they do not accept this as a very valid scientific theory according to the definition of theory and scientific method

 

[Travis St. Hubbins]

i would submit that there are many more evidences for God, and that the bible in its original languages is true, than there are for the cause of the big bang

False dichotomy. Even if current cosmology turns out to be entirely wrong or we never discover what caused the big bang, that has no bearing on whether a belief in gods is rational.

and if God can scientificly be proven the most rational of all theories, one is biased if they do not accept this as a very valid scientific theory according to the definition of theory and scientific method

How are you going to scientifically prove your god hypothesis?

 

[tanzanos]

i would submit that there are many more evidences for God, and that the bible in its original languages is true, than there are for the cause of the big bang

and if God can scientificly be proven the most rational of all theories, one is biased if they do not accept this as a very valid scientific theory according to the definition of theory and scientific method

The sad thing about Creationists is that they have absolutely no idea what Science is. The second saddest thing is that they have no Idea what the bible says. The third saddest is; they believe in ignorance. How can one argue a case of Science vs Creationism when the proponents of Creationism have the above traits.

God help us if they have their way (like they did in the dark ages and Salem)

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

The sad thing about Creationists is that they have absolutely no idea what Science is. The second saddest thing is that they have no Idea what the bible says. The third saddest is; they believe in ignorance. How can one argue a case of Science vs Creationism when the proponents of Creationism have the above traits.

God help us if they have their way (like they did in the dark ages and Salem)

i will post an open challenge to debate the beginning and the cause of the big bang according to scientific method.

actually i do agree with you that most christians dont know what the bible says because in places the translations leave a lot to be desired, however in the hebrew, chaldean and greek languages the bible tells in places a much differant story

BUT
it is wrong to assume up ignorant and unscientific, when i can easily make the same charge, and prove it, but will reserve myself


thats not my issue anyway unless it becomes a side issue of a debate because a nonchristian refuses to conceed points as happened in a previous thread of mine

 

[tanzanos]

i will post an open challenge to debate the beginning and the cause of the big bang according to scientific method.

actually i do agree with you that most christians dont know what the bible says because in places the translations leave a lot to be desired, however in the hebrew, chaldean and greek languages the bible tells in places a much differant story

BUT
it is wrong to assume up ignorant and unscientific, when i can easily make the same charge, and prove it, but will reserve myself


thats not my issue anyway unless it becomes a side issue of a debate because a nonchristian refuses to conceed points as happened in a previous thread of mine

Please be my guest and prove your point scientifically.