Question:
Is Belief in God Reasonable?
Bubbles™
2010-11-09 11:16:28 UTC
Have you wondered why everything from atomic particles to vast galaxies is governed by precise mathematical laws? Have you reflected on life itself—its variety, its complexity, and its amazing design? Many attribute the universe and the life in it to a great cosmic accident and evolution. Others give credit to an intelligent Creator. Which viewpoint do you feel is more reasonable?

Thank you.
29 answers:
Mike M.
2010-11-09 14:35:12 UTC
Just being born onto a genuine starship with radiation and meteor shields that are not Hollywood imagination, with its own completely safe, self-maintaining, free and non-polluting nuclear fusion-powered power source, perfectly recycling oxygen and water supplies, plenty of good food and space to move around and completely transparent walls so as to be able to view space from anywhere, is enough to convince many that it was designed and "built" by Somebody who knew and cared what they were doing.



And, while not defending fundamentalist "Creationism" with it's unscientific and unscriptural "7,000-year-old universe", you should know that there is plenty of evidence of an intelligent Creator in the world of living things.



For instance, ever tried to swat a fly? Not necessarily easy, right? Know why? It has to do with the fly's navigational system. It has a single vibrating rod in its abdomen, and as it changes direction in flight, it senses the changes in the vibrations of that rod and is able to dodge you, fly and land upside down and backwards. What would the Air Force pay to have flying and navigational systems that good?



How did the fly manage to evolve such a system? Even if it evolved a flopping rod, what good would it be without the muscles to vibrate it? And the unusual vibrating motion? And the nerves to send the signals from the rod to the brain? And the section of the brain to interpret the signals? And the correct instructions to interpret them? And the correct instructions to the part of the brain that controlled the wings as to what to DO about those signals? All AT THE SAME TIME. ALL USELESS UNTIL COMPLETE, giving natural selection no advantage to select during all the early "developmental stages". Wouldn't that be a remarkable coincidence? I ask people, "Could YOU sit down, right now, and write the code for such a set of instructions? And if your ten billion well trained and coordinated neurons put together can't do it with an education and a computer, is it really sensible to think that flies did it by themselves?"



The fly has a complete navigational system that is self-constructing (in its egg), self-reproducing, self-programming, self-correcting, that can fly upside down and backwards, avoiding dangers and locating and recognizing fuel (food), that requires even MORE entire, completely developed systems that even large groups of highly educated humans cannot or are only now beginning to be able to copy (and only by intelligent design), all microminiaturized into a space smaller than the head of a pin, with the code for it in characters that are the size of molecules (I wonder how many characters per inch that works out to? Pretty hi-tech data storage). No scientist can do anything like that.



So I ask people, "In your experience, how many complete flying and navigational systems do you know of that have happened completely by accident, with no intelligent thought or design?" "Did you ever read the story of all the thought and work needed to design and build a flying machine, as told by the Wright brothers themselves? So how scientific is it to say that it just happened by blind accidents in the case of the lowly, incredibly complex fly?"



All of the animal and plant world is full of examples like these. Your body is, too. Johns Hopkins University made the newspapers by making one enzyme. It must have been pretty hard to do. It was no accident. But your liver manufactures over nine hundred enzymes, all necessary for you to live, and no one thinks about putting THAT in the paper. "Could have happened completely by accident" (which is what evolution equates to, isn't it?) But if 900+ enzymes could happen so easily, simply by accidents of evolution, then why did the university make the news when it was finally able to produce ONE?



And, notice above, even an atheist must believe exactly the same as the theist, that "matter/energy has always existed..." Like, "God has always existed..."



This isn't defending the indefensible things done and taught supposedly in God's name...



Best regards,

Mike
Questioner
2010-11-09 12:39:17 UTC
Now, obviously we can’t “prove” that God exists or doesn’t exist, since He is outside of the physical realm. What we can do is look at the physical realm and ask, “Where does the evidence lead?” It is more like proving a case in the courtroom by presenting and examining the evidence and then coming to a conclusion.



The universe is here (cosmological argument), design is here (teleological argument), beauty is here (aesthetical argument), morality is here (moral argument), the desire for God is here (universal belief argument), etc.—what is their adequate preceding cause? Many people believe these point to God.



Some day, we are going to find out for sure who is right (the day we die). And the funny thing about the theism/atheism debate is, if the theists are wrong, it doesn’t matter or make any difference. But, if the atheists are wrong, it might make all the difference in the world. As the saying goes: If you are living as if there is no hell, you had better be right. That’s not an argument, but a good reason to look really hard at the evidence.
Kevin L
2010-11-09 16:12:33 UTC
Using the colloquial definition for "God" the short answer is no. There is no evidence that supports the claim that God (the Christian god) exists. None. Complexity is not an argument for design, it is an invalid argument form called an argument from ignorance. In other words, just because you cannot comprehend how or are unwilling to deal with the fact that "life itself—its variety, its complexity, and its amazing design" came to be from the simplest of things, doesn't mean that belief in an "intelligent creator" is justified. It just means that you need to investigate things further and reflect on how invalid reasoning is hurting your understanding of things. Chucking it all up to a creator is not an explanation, it is a cop out.



There is nothing wrong with not knowing something. Unlike religion, science changes its views when presented with evidence. Changing your view when presented with sufficient evidence is reasonable. Clinging to views despite strong evidence to the contrary is irrational at least, and mentally ill at worst.
anonymous
2010-11-09 11:20:36 UTC
No, belief in God is not reasonable.



Yes, I have wondered why everything from atomic particles to vast galaxies is governed by precise mathematical laws. Yes, I have reflected on life itself---its variety, it's complexity, and, yes, it's amazing design. I feel whichever viewpoint is more obvious is the more reasonable viewpoint.
anonymous
2010-11-09 11:20:14 UTC
I don't believe in God and when i get crazy looks from so called believers i ask them well if your god is all good when i meet him he will just say oh well don't worry about it i made u and i'll forgive you. I would love to laugh at all the people after they die and find out how much money they wasted on a religion when there shouldn't of been one. The funny thing is how do we know there isn't something better then what we have here ?
?
2010-11-09 11:46:42 UTC
It depends on what you mean by "reasonable."



The existence of God is not subject to proof. Every attempt to prove it, or to disprove it, winds up being either fallacious or circular. Both believers and unbelievers base their positions on a fundamentally irrational choice, because there is no rational basis for choosing.



By the same token, neither belief nor unbelief is contrary to reason. In that sense, either position is "reasonable."
TicTac
2010-11-09 11:29:42 UTC
If God exists, prove it. That what the atheist say. Can they prove He does not exist?

Because we can't see Him? I can't see the air I breath, but I still believe it exists.



Science and God coexists. They don't exclude one another. God created the man, man uses the science.



A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)



Even Einstein stated that have "something" else. He would not name it, but this brilliant man knew have something else then what we see, what we can explain.
robert
2010-11-09 11:40:44 UTC
Wow...I'm shocked by 'shut-the-door' answers here.

To those who assume science solves all...why are there scientist all over who are so in awe of our universe, planet, etc. that they can't explain numerous things on it and about it?

I have a huge amount of respect for the scientific community but why do so many scientist around the world become Christians as they continue down life's path?

Because they start to understand that science can't explain everything; which further leads us to a divine, holy and all-knowing Creator who has blessed them with wisdom.

To quote the Bible, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction."

You can't tell me Christians hate science because God created science and you can't tell me that believing in God is UNreasonable.

Finally, God reveals himself to those who seeks him...maybe some don't believe in God because they haven't sought.

I see God everyday in the face of my little girl, in the eyes of my wife, in those whom he's brought up from the ashes and in the answered prayers I've sent up.
Miss !nformation
2010-11-09 11:20:36 UTC
Yes, I have wondered as many do and the answer is that if it were not governed by they laws we know, they would be governed by different laws and would would be asking the same question. It just has to be one way and not another. Simple.
komputernut
2010-11-09 11:30:16 UTC
No. The universe we live in is as imperfect as it is "perfect". There is more that doesn't make sense if there is a God, then makes sense if there is.



You and others like you project the concepts of "design" on the universe. This is a function of how your brain works. It looks for patterns and then tries to make sense of them. It is an uncomfortable illusion for those that do not understand.



Religion provides false answers to questions so that people can be comfortable. Take the "red" pill and find out what the real world is really like.....
Fred Flintstone
2010-11-09 11:22:43 UTC
No it is totally unreasonable by definition. Why imply design when evolution explains what we have completely (and it is not amazing to anyone capable of thinking for themselves). There are so many flaws in the concept of an intelligent creator that it cannot be reasonable.
anonymous
2016-02-26 08:56:06 UTC
i totally agree with Moon, its like the greek gods, mortals could only imagine the gods because if the gods showed themselves in their true form we would spontaneously combust. the gods, as the greeks thought were much higher than us, they could not show any evidence of themselves The same, i believe is with God, He is in a far more higher level than us
Lyssa88
2010-11-09 11:24:09 UTC
What I love about this is people sitting here using their "reason" to say that belief in God is "unreasonable". It sure will be entertaining when they find out that their ability to reason was in fact given to them by God.
?
2010-11-09 11:42:44 UTC
"Have you wondered why everything from atomic particles to vast galaxies is governed by precise mathematical laws?"



Fail.
ladyren
2010-11-09 11:21:29 UTC
No creator is even necessary. Mass-energy has always existed, just not in its present form, which right now, is our universe.



Even as a kid of 11, any god just sounded riduculous to me.... made no sense. Talking snakes don't exist today, floating dead guys don't exist, no one parts the seas today, there really aren't unicorns, flying serpents, nor dragons, today, it would just sorta seem logical that those things didn't exit in bible times either.



Some folks are just stuck believe int he folk lore and fairy tales of a broup of bronze age starving goat herders, in a time of zero science.



As someone said, "Logic is the enemy of religions."
Gannon Kendrick
2010-11-09 11:18:19 UTC
God and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Belief in God is faith-based. Belief in science is scientific.

There's no reason you can't incorporate God into your world views, so long as you rationally accept what the world has proven true countless times through science and history.
Peppers_Ghost
2010-11-09 11:23:04 UTC
depends



if you have a belief in an intelligent prime cause, that has some merit... Personally,I wouldn't deny that outright



if you mean a belief in one of the many, many, MANY anthropomorphic deities invented by mankind, then I dont think that has ANY merit. It is unsupportable by any evidence.
TramMan
2010-11-09 11:23:19 UTC
Most assuredly, an Intelligent Creator. Any other view is illogical in my humble opinion.



Thanks for asking, and God bless you Bubbles
?
2010-11-09 11:31:02 UTC
It is not rational or reasonable to believe in a god. It is ignorant and childlike.
anonymous
2010-11-09 11:20:17 UTC
Is belief in atomic particles in far away galaxies reasonable.....why?



They are mere postulation. No facts involved.



At least with God we have His presence
Fred
2010-11-09 11:20:49 UTC
Fairy fantasy is not reasonable, but it is easy. In a complex world, easy trumps reasonable every time.
anonymous
2010-11-09 11:20:10 UTC
That God created the universe is the only plausible explanation.
imrod
2010-11-09 11:20:37 UTC
Cosmic accident is impossible unless their are infinite universes. That leaves theism.
?
2010-11-09 11:23:31 UTC
To have unwavering faith reason must be set aside. Reason is accepting facts. Faith desires no facts. Facts require no faith.
ogre1012131415
2010-11-09 11:21:31 UTC
God doesn't exist, and death is very scary because it is the end of your short existence on this planet.
?
2010-11-09 11:17:39 UTC
to put it shortly, belief in god is totally unreasonable because there is no proof, just likes its unreasonable to believe in a teapot revolving earth just cuz someone says there is
anonymous
2010-11-09 11:19:24 UTC
Shorter than Howard...NO!
Phoamy
2010-11-09 11:18:33 UTC
To answer you question: Belief in God is reasonable, only until you stop being afraid of death.
anonymous
2010-11-09 11:19:02 UTC
absolutely....


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...