Amaranth

Most of this discussion is obviously going to be about definitions, since there is absolutely no way to defend all those beliefs as reasonable with current data. So, with that thought in mind, we first have to define "rational":

ra·tion·al
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.

2. Of sound mind; sane.

3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior.

4. Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

As we are discussing a worldveiw, 1, 2, and 4 do not apply. Thus, in order to be rational, the beliefs presented must be "Consistent with or based on reason; logical".

All right, now to pull the lynch pin on this mess:

Four unproven, and thus irrational, beliefs: One, that there is a god. Second, that this god created Earth. Third, that there is a place called "heaven". Fourth, that this god created this place called "heaven".

When you prove these, we can move onto the second article, and why that is irrational as well.

danielius

That is to assume that Christ's blood can only be accepted within an individual's lifespan. I don't believe such an assumption is a necessary one.

If there are two Gods, they are necessarily limited by the other. But God, to be meaningfully understood as God, cannot be limited by another.

The same reason as above, a multitude of 'gods' would compromise one another.

Actually, neither the Egyptians or Hindus had trinities. The Egyptian Osiris, Isis and Horus were all gods, and therefore not a trinity (tri-unity). In Hinduism, Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu are variously described as 'gods' or as 'faces' of one supreme God. Again, this does not correspond with the Christian doctrine of trinity.

Only if you believe in an isolated God. If God is love, then it is reasonable to establish the premise that God's nature is relational, which is what trinity says.

Danielius

danielius

A non sequitur. It doesn't follow, either from your own definition for 'rational' or from the definitions for 'reason' above, that something which is 'unproven' is necessarily irrational. The major criteria, which you set out yourself, states that to be reasonable is to be 'consistent with or based on reason, logic'. I am asserting that the statements outlined are based on reason and logic, and are therefore reasonable. This is distinct from stating that they are 'proven'.

Danielius

Amaranth

Actually, it follows just fine. You have given 4 beliefs that posit the existance of things which are assumed, not proven, to exist. Until you can prove their existance, the belief is illogical, and thus irrational.

emotional

That's another break you have with orthodoxy: "it is appointed once to die, and after that the judgement".



Christians say, "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost". Are these not three gods? Or if these three are just faces (persons) of one God, how is this state of affairs different from Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva being the faces of Aum/Brahman? Wiccans too believe that the Goddess and the God are the two faces of the One - one Creator-God Who is personalised in a male God and a female Goddess.

That's a non-sequitur. God can be love AND Unitarian. The relational nature of God refers to His relations with His creations, such as human beings.

It's still unreasonable that 1+1+1=1. Not only because the maths is wrong, but because the existence of three 1s is arbitrary (why not two? Why not four? Why not just begin and end with a simple One to get things over with?)

Goliath

<anal-retentive, nitpicking mode ON>

Well, 1+1+1=1 in a field of characteristic two.

<anal-retentive, nitpicking mode OFF>



Sincerely,

Goliath

danielius

It is reasonable to believe there is a God -

1. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves or at least supports God's existence

2. Therefore, it is possible that God exists

3. If it is possible, then faith has its place

It is reasonable to posit that the earth was created -

1. Everything that exists was brought into existence by something else

2. The universe was necessary to exist for the earth to exist

3. Something was necessary to exist for the universe to exist; we call that something 'God'

It is reasonable to believe that there is a 'heaven' -

1. Human nature is to play, to laugh, to explore, to dream

2. This world does not constitute a sufficient explanation for human nature

3. Therefore, heaven is a reasonable belief, as humans are believed to have been created in the image of heaven

It is reasonable to posit God as the creator of heaven -

1. If it is reasonable to believe that God created the earth, then it is reasonable to believe He created heaven also

Danielius

danielius

It does not say how long (or short) after one dies that the judgement comes. You are supposing no provision by which a person, beyond lifespan, can come into relationship with God. I do not see that such a supposition is necessary.

Nope. And to argue that the Hindu triad is equivalent to the Christian doctrine of trinity just does not hold. As I understand it, the 'three faces' idea did not emerge in Hinduism until six centuries after Christ. If there is any link at all, it is that the Hindu view is spin-off from the Christian, not the other way round.

And 'face' is not the same as 'person'.

Only if you believe in an isolated and narcissistic God, or an illogical one.

What about before Creation existed? Did God suddenly become loving after Creation? What about before?

And how did God come about the thought of relationship with creation if He was since ever an isolated God?

What about 1x1x1=1?

Is simplicity always good? How did God meaningfully define Himself before creation, when only He existed? How can you reconcile God's attributes of justice and forgiveness in one nature? How did God communicate Himself as His self-revelation to Man? Simplicity is good, but subtlety is better.

Danielius

Amaranth

#2 is very weak because you haven't even defined "god". It's very possible this "god" you have defined has contradictory properties, mean it is not possible that it exists. As is, "god" could just mean "a small, round peice of metal used as currency".

#3 is an irrelivent conclusion. The premise is that "god" is a rational belief. Proving this with a proof based on showing that "faith has a place" is not productive. Faith of this type, or "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence", is inherently not logical, and thus irrational by definition.

This type of argument get's torn up nearly daily on the "Existance of God" forums. The main weak point:

#1 and #3 are directly contradictory. Your argument starts with the premise that "All things have a cause", but ends with a being that has no cause. Thus either your 1st or 3rd line is incorrect.

#1 is a premise that I won't grant. It seems to me, considering the levels of murder and violence in the world, that your description of human nature is false.

#2 is a blatant argument from ignorance.

#3 is an irrelevent conclusion. Nothing presented (even if it were accepted as true) supports heaven, nor humans being created in the image of heaven. Also, your "heaven" is still woefully undefined.

Rediculous. Because I have one child, it is reasonable to believe that I made all children?

Bumble Bee Tuna

It appears we really have different definitions of "reasonable". We hold that the definition of "reasonable" boils down to being synonymous with logical or rational. You apparently feel that's not the case- in which case, I agree with you: by your definition of reasonable, Christianity is a reasonable worldview. So is every other worldview one could come up with. But by the definition of reasonable that makes sense, it is not. Otherwise, you would have provided some form of logical arguments for your beliefs. You did not.
I can't tell, but it appears your definition of "reasonable" is "internally consistent" whereas our definition is "internally AND externally consistent". I come to this conclusion because you say things like "3. Therefore, heaven is a reasonable belief, as humans are believed to have been created in the image of heaven". The belief that humans are createdin the image of heaven (not true, it's the image of God in the Bible anyway) is an unproven assertion. It does not constitute a logical reason in any way. It is at least internally consistent, though- Heaven is an invented place, but at least the description of it isn't contradictory. This is what you seem to be saying. If this is what you consider "reason" then there's really no point in debating with you- we just have to accept that your standards for what is reasonable are much lower than ours and that your standards allow for "reasonable" beliefs that are completely false and irrational.
It is good to see, though, that after 4 pages, you finally got on topic. Good job!

-B