Is believing God or some sort irrational?

[JS80]

Originally posted by: RallyMaster
SokaMoka: you forgot the sunglasses

My take on this: It's not irrational. Faith provides emotional support for many and is a moral base. I doubt the US would be as advanced as it is now without some of the moral base.

Without it, I think we'd be degenerating like Europe.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: DaWhim
I felt the time when I was most irrational was the time I was closest to God.

discuss.

in a logical sense, you're correct. it requires a blind faith belief that what you believe can never be tested scientifically.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: her209
The real question is Would you still follow Him even if you knew you were going to hell?

Keanu Reeves did.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: JS80
I'd say it's irrational to NOT believe in God. Why risk eternal hell for 70 years of Smugness?

How do you know you chose the right one though? To live your entire life, following something that could be wrong, 'just incase', is pretty absurd.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: DaWhim
I felt the time when I was most irrational was the time I was closest to God.

discuss.

in a logical sense, you're correct. it requires a blind faith belief that what you believe can never be tested scientifically.

Actually, from a logical standpoint it makes less sense to rule out God. It is, hypothetically, possible to test and prove God scientifically, given the right circumstances (sufficient type miracle occurring among the proper people and instruments for example.) However, it is not ever possible to scientifically prove the absence of God because there is no limit to the number of tests that would have to be performed, plus the argument that the scientific world is "material" and God is "spiritual" and an entirely other set of testing criteria would have to be devised.

So while you can argue that believing in God is irrational because we have not now proved his existence, denying the existence of God is equally irrational. Which leaves us with indecision that can lean, by personal experience and opinion, either towards or against a belief in God.

So no, believing in God is not irrational, just scientifically unproved. Denying the existance of God does not make one irrational, just skeptical without scientific proof.

Remember that common knowledge and common sense are not always right. To use an example so obviously open to tangent attacks that I hope nobody will be low enough to use it, the world did not turn out to be flat.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: ironwing
We NEED a lawn chair icon.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: DaWhim
I felt the time when I was most irrational was the time I was closest to God.

discuss.

in a logical sense, you're correct. it requires a blind faith belief that what you believe can never be tested scientifically.

Actually, from a logical standpoint it makes less sense to rule out God. It is, hypothetically, possible to test and prove God scientifically, given the right circumstances (sufficient type miracle occurring among the proper people and instruments for example.) However, it is not ever possible to scientifically prove the absence of God because there is no limit to the number of tests that would have to be performed, plus the argument that the scientific world is "material" and God is "spiritual" and an entirely other set of testing criteria would have to be devised.

So while you can argue that believing in God is irrational because we have not now proved his existence, denying the existence of God is equally irrational. Which leaves us with indecision that can lean, by personal experience and opinion, either towards or against a belief in God.

So no, believing in God is not irrational, just scientifically unproved. Denying the existance of God does not make one irrational, just skeptical without scientific proof.

Remember that common knowledge and common sense are not always right. To use an example so obviously open to tangent attacks that I hope nobody will be low enough to use it, the world did not turn out to be flat.

To your last assertion about the world not being flat ... there was no scientific test done to determine that the world was round. As science evolves, and more and more is understood about the universe, the conclusion that the world was round was reached and agreed on.

Anyway, back to your assertion that it's possible to prove God through science. One minor problem with that is that one has to believe that there is such a thing as a "miracle" and not just a "coincidence." Once you believe that there are miracles and that whatever you deem to be a miracle, must be attributed to God then, I suppose all your other premises fall into place.