Well trodden cattle paths ...

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what is the rational basis for the existence of god? why does there have to be a reason for everything, it would be great if there was a reason, we would all like to think there was but why are you so confident there is?

I don't think you can see any reason for anything to just be here the way it is,
something needed to bring into existence into its current state. So for me
something outside of the universe itself has to be a cause, then when you
see the balance we have so that the processes within the universe are setup
in such a state that supports life it seems to me to indicate that the universe
has a purpose behind it too.

You can argue against a cause or a reason and see nothing has to have a
cause or the reason, I just don't buy it not with all the things that have to be
just right in order for us to get what we see around us.
Kelly

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what is the rational basis for the existence of god? why does there have to be a reason for everything, it would be great if there was a reason, we would all like to think there was but why are you so confident there is?

I gave you reasons, but the strongest are personal reasons that do not
translate well in this type of communication, because people can claim
they experienced anything it could be true or not. Their experiences even
if true may not really be what they think too, they may be giving a truthful
statement as they see it, but they not be sharing what really happened.
Kelly

Originally posted by Rajk999
1. For most there is none. For someone to have a rational basis means they must have had some kind of visitation [for want of a better word] from God or Christ or angel etc. For most belief is based on irrational faith.

2. No. Belief in the existance can occrur without having faith.

eg A person can believe that God exists but have no faith. His lack o ...[text shortened]... heir opulent lifestyle, their lack of charitable deeds and love for their fellow-men .. etc etc.

And here is a perfect case in point.

"1. For most there is none. For someone to have a rational basis means they must have had some kind of visitation [for want of a better word] from God or Christ or angel etc. For most belief is based on irrational faith."

See here is an acknowledgement that you need evidence (in this case a 'personal visitation by god'😉 to rationally justify
believing in something.
However no personal experience of any kind is acceptable evidence, by any definition I know, for the existence of god or
the supernatural.
Which would mean that I would disagree with the statement that you can have a rational belief in god based on a
personal experience.

So we need a mutually agreed definition of what we mean by rationality and evidence.


And again...

"2. No. Belief in the existance can occrur without having faith.

eg A person can believe that God exists but have no faith. His lack of faith is demonstrated by is lifestyle which is contrary to a God-fearing lifestyle. Many Christians actually live out this double standard. They have all the outer visible trappings of a Christian who believes in God but their faith is made void by their evil works ... their worldliness, their greed, their opulent lifestyle, their lack of charitable deeds and love for their fellow-men .. etc etc."


And this is talking about a different meaning of faith from the one I use.

Faith is a word with many many different meanings and which you pick or assume the op was talking about significantly alters what
answers your questions will elicit.



This is incidentally why in any field of technical discussion there are specialised dictionaries with the specific and well defined
meanings that are used in that profession (science being a good example) so that when a person writes a technical paper
everyone either knows what the terms mean precisely or know where to look to find the relevant accepted definition.

This applies to everything from legal jargon and accounting and economic terminology to scientific language.

As we don't have a universally acknowledged definition that we all accept for these terms that we can all use as a reference
we are going to have to [within reason] pick ones (and they can be different for different discussions) so that we are all on
the same page and not debating at cross purposes.

I would suggest that it should be up to the OP to declare what definition they are using when posting any particular questions.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You do talk a lot.

My response: To say that God exists is to deny God.

What?
So denying god exists is to accept god??

That's just nonsense.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I gave you reasons, but the strongest are personal reasons that do not
translate well in this type of communication, because people can claim
they experienced anything it could be true or not. Their experiences even
if true may not really be what they think too, they may be giving a truthful
statement as they see it, but they not be sharing what really happened.
Kelly

thanks kellyj, nice answer. it remands me of a story my dad told me about a supernatural experience he had on a job working in a closed nightclub. i wont bore you with the details, but he was an agnotstic with a protestant upbringing, but what he witnessed that day changed him and he became a 'believer' again! now, i think hes as mad as a box of spanners but i respect him and his story and although i make fun of him, i like to hear it and it gives me goosebumps. but what we 'feel' as humans can not be trusted unless it can be measured, or weighed , or quantified, or applied logic if we disregard the things that gotten us this far then we are nothing more than a gods automatons.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If that your own work, you are talented at making words rhyme in a meaningful way. Very good 🙂

I always give references for other people's work, altho BdN's mention of the mire reminded me of the Doors (of perception) and the rest kinda wallowed out.

I am thinking that the poster of an OP here, should be entitled to specify the meter and rhyme scheme of replies, to introduce some creativity to the place. 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
What?
So denying god exists is to accept god??

That's just nonsense.

BdN: "My response: To say that God exists is to deny God."

Sounds apophatic to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

quote:

Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.

Originally posted by Rajk999
eg A person can believe that God exists but have no faith. His lack of faith is demonstrated by is lifestyle which is contrary to a God-fearing lifestyle. Many Christians actually live out this double standard. They have all the outer visible trappings of a Christian who believes in God but their faith is made void by their evil works ... their worldliness, ...[text shortened]... heir opulent lifestyle, their lack of charitable deeds and love for their fellow-men .. etc etc.

I say you are the one without faith who would constrain God so.

Your constant holier-than-thou attitude does neither you nor Christ justice.

He included in His ministry many whom you would shun today.

Prostitutes, thieves, and many other 'sinners' (as judged by you) have a better chance at seeing God than one who would boast of his 'works'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I say you are the one without faith who would constrain God so.

Your constant holier-than-thou attitude does neither you nor Christ justice.

He included in His ministry many whom you would shun today.

Prostitutes, thieves, and many other 'sinners' (as judged by you) have a better chance at seeing God than one who would boast of his 'works'.

Do you have any references to support your statements?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
thanks kellyj, nice answer. it remands me of a story my dad told me about a supernatural experience he had on a job working in a closed nightclub. i wont bore you with the details, but he was an agnotstic with a protestant upbringing, but what he witnessed that day changed him and he became a 'believer' again! now, i think hes as mad as a box of spanner ...[text shortened]... isregard the things that gotten us this far then we are nothing more than a gods automatons.

I don't discount all of those type of stories, having some that are lies, or
some type of delusions doesn’t mean all are. I do tend to take those with
a large grain of salt.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
a) Is there a rational basis for the belief that God exists?

b) Is belief-in-the-existence-of-God synonymous with having faith / being faithful?

no...
yes...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
a) Is there a rational basis for the belief that God exists?

b) Is belief-in-the-existence-of-God synonymous with having faith / being faithful?

No to both imo.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Aaaah yes, the self confessed 'closed minded' 'ignoramus' talks about the evidence he's too afraid to look at. You up for the book deal yet or are you still

I am reading not a few books at present and not by coincidence every one is designed
to help one overcome materialism!

Originally posted by Agerg
Come one Robbie...you're not going to play the old "oh what were the chances the universe would turn out like this?" card again are you?[hidden]swiftly followed by some ill-conceived probability measure of course[/hidden]

Had the universe turned out any different[hidden](whether or whether not we would be around (as a species) to discuss it)[/hidden]the cha ...[text shortened]... e in the first place)[/hidden] play out some course - it just so happens it was this one.

The Op asked for any premise which may justify a rational basis for belief in God and
whether faith was necessary, whether you accept these reasons or not, they are
founded upon rationality.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What?
So denying god exists is to accept god??

That's just nonsense.

If you say so ...