The Choice I Never Made...

[Padawanbater2]

You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?

 

[olylifter420]

WHat, who said i was funny? I never claimed that i was funny! What the fuck?

im not out to make fun of atheists' either! Gosh, where are you getting this from dude?

I see that you all dont care to bother to answer some of the questions i have asked all along, but that is ok, i dont hate you all like you hate me...

I think guys are a cool bunch... SOrta like the brady bunch!

Why do you people continue to engage this troll? It's obvious he's not interested in anything anyone says, whether it is the truth or not. He's here because he thinks he's funny and can make fun of atheists although the majority of his posts merely display that he's mentally incapable of having a rational discussion. Quit posting and he'll have no one to play with.

 

[olylifter420]

I like the way you think... Are all atheists' pricks and dick heads like you or are all dick heads and pricks atheists'?

both seem to have the same motives in life... belittle people they dont agree with...

You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?

 

[mindphuk]

I see that you all dont care to bother to answer some of the questions i have asked all along,

^^^^
This = Ironic

 

[Luger187]

well if organisms evolve, are they not an intelligent organism?

intelligence isnt necessary for evolution. bacteria evolve

what questions? If you were not smart enough you would have understood my point of view already.... I never said no, evolution does not exist, did I? All i said is i choose not to accept it before my faith...

and there is a missing link between the last found hominid and us, humans... that is the missing link i am talking about...

Just Dawson and Woodward in 1912, who decided to create a fake discovery of the "missing link." They created a skull that had both human and ape characteristics, but when further investigations were done, they discovered that they were false and a hoax!

That is the missing link that i need...

what do you mean by you do not accept evolution? youve seen the evidence, but choose to ignore it because the bible has contradictions to it?

ok so if we found that missing link, would you not say we need another fossil to show the new missing link? people have been doing this for many years. like i said before, any new evidence discovered only creates more gaps, which anti-evolutionists claim are evidence of evolutions faults.

of course people are going to make hoaxes to make a profit. thats what some humans do

 

[Luger187]

well if organisms evolve, are they not an intelligent organism?

I like the way you think... Are all atheists' pricks and dick heads like you or are all dick heads and pricks atheists'?

both seem to have the same motives in life... belittle people they dont agree with...

that is what you have been doing. actually you just did it in the first sentence of this quote

 

[brett11253]

Why do you people continue to engage this troll? It's obvious he's not interested in anything anyone says, whether it is the truth or not. He's here because he thinks he's funny and can make fun of atheists although the majority of his posts merely display that he's mentally incapable of having a rational discussion. Quit posting and he'll have no one to play with.

They all believe in it because they are scared to oppose it.

 

[karri0n]

Oly,

Do you choose to believe in God? If it were a choice, then you could choose not to. Could you possibly choose to be certain that there is no god?

 

[Brazko]

You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?

I don't know Pad. Is there any rational reasons to believe in God?

Let's see what a quick google search brings up.....


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


Arguments for the existence of God

• The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
• The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
  • The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligentcause.[18] Its proponents are mainly Christians[19] and Jews[20].
• The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God.[21]Avicenna,[22][23]St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[21]
• The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.
• Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.
• The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as humanity's existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
• The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
• The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
• The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
• The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all human thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

[edit] Arguments from historical events or personages



See also: Anecdotal Evidence

• Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.
• The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God's existence.[24] This is one of several arguments known as the Christological argument.
• Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Qur'an, vindicates its divine authorship, and thus the existence of a God.
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God.

[edit] Hindu arguments

Hindus argue that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma. In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).[25]
A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.[26] Thus, God affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.[27] Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.
The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma;[28] it is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God.[28] This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.[28]

[edit] Inductive arguments



Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

• Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?[29]

[edit] Arguments from testimony

See also: Anecdotal Evidence



Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealedreligion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[30]

• The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
• The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

[edit] Arguments grounded in personal experiences


See also: Anecdotal Evidence

• An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called "Born-Again Christians".
• The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges people to accept them.
• The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
• In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person's consciousness and unites them to one another.[31] God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
• In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a person's understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people's hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
• The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[32]
• Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
• Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one's subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself. In condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")
• Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
• Brahma Kumaris religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant Lekhraj Kripalani (1876–1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him. [33][34

Back on Topic...

I do not choose to believe in God. Maybe there is only evidential information provided in contexts that you are capable of comprehending that impedes you to not believe in God. However what you are capable of comprehending has no bearing on the evidence that I am able to comprehend that facilitates my belief in God. Your absence is my absence.

I'm also rational enough to know there are rational arguments against the existence of a God/god. If I wished to know them, I'm rational enough to seek them out. If I then wanted to discuss my rationality of thought compared with other rational arguements, I would then lay out what rational arguements I had, so others could discuss the rationality of my thinking. But if you just want rational arguements there are plenty provided above you could choose from.

I find rationality in the belief of Santa Claus, you find irrationality in the belief of Santa Claus. The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...

Please note as well that I do not find all arguements above as rational to my understanding, however, they are rational arguements others have presented no less....

 

[karri0n]

I find rationality in the belief of Santa Claus, you find irrationality in the belief of Santa Claus. The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...

..

If I understand correctly, you are asserting that it's a problem in defining just what a god is. I absolutely agree with this, and feel that once people can get past their understanding of deities as sky wizards that literally exist on this plane, a much better understanding can be reached between all parties. There is, unfortunately, a very large population that has been told that interpreting mythology as metaphor(its intended purpose) is blasphemous.

 

[Brazko]

If I understand correctly, you are asserting that it's a problem in defining just what a god is. I absolutely agree with this, and feel that once people can get past their understanding of deities as sky wizards that literally exist on this plane, a much better understanding can be reached between all parties. There is, unfortunately, a very large population that has been told that interpreting mythology as metaphor(its intended purpose) is blasphemous.

Your understanding is correct. I know a stance may be made to say defined terms are all we have and should be defined as such. However we must use the defined as a means to understanding the gray in between.

The gray never appears definable by any definition and there is no black to white without the gray in between.

 

[olylifter420]

If the missing link was found then i would most certainly applaud the find... IT would not change my beliefs but i would feel more comfortable accepting the entire process of evolution.

So what is an intelligent organism?

ANd i choose not to adhere to logical discussion rules here because we have differing point of views and no true education is taking place or one concrete point will not be establish... Although, the same discussion taking place here, i was able to have with my professor... That discussion was very productive and educational... What you all have to say and question, i really do not care for and to satisfy your need to make fun of people, fuck off fucking atheists! LOL>>>>

However, if any of you have a degree in anthropology or the like and have commented on here, i will consider your opinions if you care to share your degrees.

I choose to believe in God because i want to, I had wondering thoughts like you all atheists', but i found that life without direction was boring... I felt that not believing in anything really was not a life i wanted to live... I also found that during that time, i was more miserable and unhappy then ever. Then i found out that my faith in God is above all else... My life is so much better now that my faith is stronger then ever... SO i really dont care what you question about my beliefs... I think i have shared with you more then i would like to, but i want you all to keep feeling superior to me and making your atheist statements at me...

intelligence isnt necessary for evolution. bacteria evolve



what do you mean by you do not accept evolution? youve seen the evidence, but choose to ignore it because the bible has contradictions to it?

ok so if we found that missing link, would you not say we need another fossil to show the new missing link? people have been doing this for many years. like i said before, any new evidence discovered only creates more gaps, which anti-evolutionists claim are evidence of evolutions faults.

of course people are going to make hoaxes to make a profit. thats what some humans do

 

[Padawanbater2]

If the missing link was found then i would most certainly applaud the find... IT would not change my beliefs but i would feel more comfortable accepting the entire process of evolution.

You're either lying or haven't gone two searches deep into Google to find the answer of "the missing link!". At least you were honest in saying that you STILL wouldn't accept it and it wouldn't change your beliefs, but why wouldn't you accept the truth? Why would you believe the god you believe created the universe and everything in it (which includes your intellect) would want you to lie to yourself? Don't you think he's going to know you're attempting to lie and bypass the system you believe he's set up? Has this question again gone way over your head? Are you just going to throw out more attacks with nothing to offer?

ANd i choose not to adhere to logical discussion rules here because we have differing point of views and no true education is taking place or one concrete point will not be establish..

..which would be the point of adhering to the rules and guidlines of logic.

You say one thing, I say one thing, you don't follow the rules and instead just go "blah blah blah!" with your hands over your ears and closed eyes, we get nowhere fast. Check back the last 6 or 7 pages for a fine example of that. All you do is blab on about being attacked, being persecuted.

I choose to believe in God because i want to, I had wondering thoughts like you all atheists', but i found that life without direction was boring...

You're ignorant. You don't choose beliefs. I've literally face-palmed multiple times while responding to you.. Are you a grown adult person? I'm very curious how you live your day to day life.. This is stuff I learned at the very beginning of life.. On top of it is the anger issue. Anything that differs from your own POV is wrong! Violence is the answer. You're a weak human being with a weak mind, you can't defend your thoughts or actions with words and it humiliates you, as it should. You should be ashamed for holding the beliefs you've expressed. Go pick on little kids or weaker people than you. No amount of physical harm you cause will fill the void that's left over after everything's all said and done and you still can't answer to yourself why you believe some of the crazy shit you do, your only answer is because a book told you to, and that same book told you it was right, which in the end, is the worst face palm of all.

So yeah, at least you're left with that.

I felt that not believing in anything really was not a life i wanted to live... I also found that during that time, i was more miserable and unhappy then ever. Then i found out that my faith in God is above all else... My life is so much better now that my faith is stronger then ever... SO i really dont care what you question about my beliefs... I think i have shared with you more then i would like to, but i want you all to keep feeling superior to me and making your atheist statements at me...

Translation: "the fact this fake phoney shit makes me feel comfortable being an asshole and gives me a fake phoney justification (whether I even understand what the fuck this means or not) so I can sleep at night is more important than anyone else's life, liberty or happiness."

Go fuck yourself oly. If nothing else, I'm sure you'll understand that much.

Have a pleasant night.

 

[Heisenberg]

Pad, I don't think oly is the best person to seek answers from. He's stumbled upon religion without understanding what it is, so there is a poor chance you will gain any understanding from him. He has proven this with all his responses, which aren't likely to change. He doesn't even understand what we mean when we say ignorant, he sees it as an insult. How can you communicate with that level of under education? It's like trying to explain to a child that the big bright ball of light in the sky is actually a giant nuclear furnace that builds hydrogen into helium. The child doesn't know what words like hydrogen and nuclear mean, so there is no way he can possibly go on to make a connection. He is not capable of seeing it as anything other than a ball of light, nor is he capable of explaining to you why he doesn't see it your way. Oly is not a child, so it is unlikely his basic comprehension skills will improve. Whether someone takes this position with god or the sun, is it really a religious position? Oly is both willfully and incidentally ignorant, and happy about it. Your words will never mean anything other than atheist superiority to him, and you will gather no valid insight from engaging him. The good news is that people such as him don't amount to much in life, and he probably doesn't vote or try to influence political policy. When someone demonstrates they are a lost cause (incapable of comprehensive discussion) it is best to leave them be and let them circle the drain. It is your thread, but I don't see the value in your exchanges. Even religious people that might be reading this thread know better than him. I think it's important to send the message that, if you can't defend your beliefs (or even express them clearly in olys case) you DO NOT get to bring them to the table and participate in discussion with the adults. Unless of course you simply enjoy poking a retard with a stick.

People with his outlook and conduct make me angry too, but I realized a few years ago that those sort of people are not likely to be part of your circle of acquaintances. I used to leave the house with an angry sour attitude aimed at religious people, but in actuality most of them don't mind questioning their beliefs and assigning reason, as invalid as it may be. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back. This in no way excuses them for their erroneous conclusions and their tendency to push and judge; I am just saying that neither do they deserve such level of hostility. When you do encounter a worthless position such as olys, it does no good to attack it as it does not represent the typical catalyst responsible for religion. The best thing you can do is to promote awareness and education and encourage critical thought, which of course I see you do a lot. It's a long slow process but one that is likely to, eventually, be productive. These are the things I would have told my younger, angrier self, and I say them to you not out of concern for oly, but because I think you might benefit from a different perspective. I still tend to be inflammatory and offensive at times, but I do so while promoting doubt, and not just to point fingers and insult. If you turn on the God channel in my house, within 10 minutes I will be so angry at their manipulative promotion of self serving illogic I might break the TV, but again, I find those are not the same people I see going to church, and not all religious people are affiliated.

In short, I am suggesting you should save your contempt for those who deserve it (sheep mentality vs child mentality) and shape it into a more piercing and impressionable tool.

Here's a quote that in no way pertains to anything I've just expressed,

I have no room in my heart for compassion
If you piss me off I will quickly start smashin'
Your pleas for reason are simply pathetic
Why waste my words when my fists are poetic

- Beefcake the Mighty

[video=youtube;y-rxFGqseIs]http://youtu.be/eMUoN61HE3M[/video]

I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I BEAT YOU TO DEATH.

 

[guy incognito]

 

[guy incognito]

I don't know Pad. Is there any rational reasons to believe in God?

Let's see what a quick google search brings up.....


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


Arguments for the existence of God

• The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
• The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
  
  • The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligentcause.[18] Its proponents are mainly Christians[19] and Jews[20].
• The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God.[21]Avicenna,[22][23]St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[21]
• The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.
• Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.
• The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as humanity's existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
• The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
• The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
• The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
• The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all human thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

[edit] Arguments from historical events or personages



See also: Anecdotal Evidence

• Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.
• The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God's existence.[24] This is one of several arguments known as the Christological argument.
• Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Qur'an, vindicates its divine authorship, and thus the existence of a God.
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God.

[edit] Hindu arguments

Hindus argue that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma. In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).[25]
A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.[26] Thus, God affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.[27] Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.
The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma;[28] it is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God.[28] This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.[28]

[edit] Inductive arguments



Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

• Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?[29]

[edit] Arguments from testimony

See also: Anecdotal Evidence



Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealedreligion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[30]

• The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
• The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

[edit] Arguments grounded in personal experiences


See also: Anecdotal Evidence

• An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called "Born-Again Christians".
• The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges people to accept them.
• The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
• In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person's consciousness and unites them to one another.[31] God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
• In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a person's understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people's hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
• The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[32]
• Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
• Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one's subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself. In condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")
• Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
• Brahma Kumaris religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant Lekhraj Kripalani (1876–1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him. [33][34

I do not choose to believe in God. Maybe there is only evidential information provided in contexts that you are capable of comprehending that impedes you to not believe in God. However what you are capable of comprehending has no bearing on the evidence that I am able to comprehend that facilitates my belief in God. Your absence is my absence.

I'm also rational enough to know there are rational arguments against the existence of a God/god. If I wished to know them, I'm rational enough to seek them out. If I then wanted to discuss my rationality of thought compared with other rational arguements, I would then lay out what rational arguements I had, so others could discuss the rationality of my thinking. But if you just want rational arguements there are plenty provided above you could choose from.

I find rationality in the belief of Santa Claus, you find irrationality in the belief of Santa Claus. The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...

Please note as well that I do not find all arguements above as rational to my understanding, however, they are rational arguements others have presented no less....

I stopped reading this post about half way through, but as far as I can see there is not a single rational reason in that list.

 

[guy incognito]

WTF @ RIU for that triple post

 

[guy incognito]

WTF @ RIU for that triple post

 

[beardo]

You are a perfect example of the disgusting pieces of shit organized religion produces. Can't think for yourself. Can't accept criticism. Can't defend your beliefs. Can't have an adult conversation. Always resorts to violence first. Always takes offense. Doesn't care to understand science yet uses it's applications on a daily basis. Takes EVERYTHING for granted. Is content living in ignorance. I'd be amazed if you could tie your fucking shoes man.

You, and the millions of retards like you, are the reason the rest of us have to deal with so much unnecessary shit. One day the day will come where most of us on the other side stop giving a fuck about picking you idiots up by your belt buckle to join us and let you destroy the self righteous Christian society you've created. We'll be nowhere to found for help when you need it.

Are you Atheists working on ways to eliminate us? I'm sure you are. Elitist scum.

 

[beardo]

It's funny how no one would answer these questions

Originally Posted by beardo
So why not attempt to smash in the skull of any one who disagrees? maybe you could eliminate religious belief that way? Don't they kill flaun gong members in China and harvest their organs? I think China banned religion or has their own state religion.

Originally Posted by beardo
Why don't you? Why not? Don't you think they would taste good?



No one seems to want to touch on this or give any answers, but this might highlight why we need God.