What is more reasonable, to believe in God or not to believe?

Question

In other words, which perspective has the best reasons?

thomas p - Ah, but faith IS reasonable.

davidgold sw - Something is reasonable when good reasons exist for it. Faith for example.

soleil noir - If nothing + nothing = something, your right.

scott m - The existance of a painting is not a good reason to believe that there is a painter? You might want to rethink that.

scott - What you call irrationality, is not. There are good reasons for having faith. So your wrong. Faith is reasonable.

JP - You have creation staring you in the face and you think that?

girl afraid - People made mistakes. And your point is?

bregweid - I agree.

JP - You said, "not any of the main religions". Why? Because you don't understand or like some doctrine? Why don't you try trusting God. We know creation has a creator. The Bible presents him as love, holy, and all powerful. So, regarding any issue you have with faith, there must be an explanation for it that is satisfactory. If you do not know it, it makes perfect sense to trust God. Even if its something you don't like, remember that you probably do not know the whole truth regarding the issue, so trust God. He is love.

tammidee 10 - Don't be afraid of the truth. Embrace it.

Kbaker 0210 - So, what your saying is, its illogical to believe that a beautiful painting of Mona Lisa, could happen without an artist. Or to believe that nothing + nothing = something. I AGREE with that.

night angel - If you refuse to TRUST God, you will end up not believing anything. All your issues with the Bible for example, are a result of your unwillingness to be understanding and to trust God.

girl afraid - I was referring to wrong beliefs in the past regarding science. Earth being flat, it being the center of space ect... Science has not evoloved enough, yet, to a point where it can "prove" many of the things of God.
Does that mean we should wait and reject God in the mean time? I don't think so. As for your statement that science contradicts Christianity, remember that there is a Creator and all things are possible to him. So why the problem believing the miracles of the Bible for example?

Answer 1

I think it is more reasonable to believe in God. We had to have a creator. Science would have us believe we were some kind of accident. Like we just manifested out of nothing. Look how amazing people are. You can't tell me, we are an accident. We had to be planned and carefully crafted.

Answer 2

Clear heart and open mind guides to the the existence of God. Having God in Heart, provides satisfaction, power and happiness to the self.

At the end, believers will find the biggest prize at Heaven..
If God is not there, they will loose nothing. They will be equally with others of having nothing.

Not to believe, you will get nothing in both cases: if God is there or not.

So, from point of view of profit and loss:
--==Believers will find a possible permenant happiness.
No possibility to lose.
--==Non-believers will loose the possible permenant hapiness.
No possibility to gain..

Recent researches in physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy , geology,...always introduce more facts about the Universe to man's knowledge. The recently adventured scientific facts are always coinciding with indications in Quran that have been addressed by God before 1400 ( one thousand four hundred) years. You may find some examples in Dr.Zaghloul El.naggar web site.
In that time no one but God knows about such secrets.
That is a sufficient proof that God is the creator of every thing.

Answer 3

In order of reasonability:

Agnosticism
Atheism
Theism

Agnosticism because it captures the core truth -- the existence of a god can neither be proven nor disproven.

Atheism because it is not self-referencing and relies on modes of knowing that are self correcting.

Theism because if neither agnosticism or atheism are true, well, there must be a god of some sort. I'd bet the Deists would turn out to be the ones who are right though, certainly not any of the religions with names.

----------------

The existence of information does not imply an intelligent source for that information. Information can exist anywhere that there is a gradient... be it an energy gradient, a density gradient, etc. Therefore, the existence of existence itself only proves there was a beginning point of all that is observable, but tells us NOTHING of the nature of that beginning. It could have been Yahweh, sure. It could also have been nothing but extrinsic hyperdimentional physics. It could have been the god of our nearest alien neighbors, Zythekxix, coughing up a mote of dust that was irritating his ilxynix (??? I dunno, just made that one up). It could have been any of the gods man has believed in, or any of the ones he hasn't even thought of.

The one that requires the fewest invented agents is the extrinsic hyperdimensional physics. Therefore, the god hypothesis is removed via occam's razor.

Yes. I believe that. That's how I'm here to observe the universe around me. Raw application of mathematically computable principles on an otherwise impersonal and unintelligent source.

Answer 4

Most proven science contradicts the main facets of Christian belief, so I would say not. However, we have yet to see defintive proof that God doesn't exist either, so it's fair to believe as well, if that's your thing.

Clarify 'people made mistakes'. Either you mean scientists made mistakes, which is false, science is science because it's fact; or you're saying people who wrote the Bible made mistakes, in which case you're saying that Christianity is based on lies - which is it?

Answer 5

To believe... if you believe in God, you cannot even comprehend how amazing life is with God. Lets just say hypothetically that the Christians are wrong and there is no God... at least they can say that they lived life and they were changed for the better, they lose nothing. However, imagine that there is a God (which there is), those who chose not to believe, well then they are REALLY gonna regret not believing. Yeah... that's my take on it.

Answer 6

The catch to this question is "reasonable". From *MY* perspective ONLY...if we go with pure reason, then we shouldn't believe in ANY supreme being...not just the Christian God. "Reasonable" is defined as "reason" which in turn has as part of it's definition "to think logically; analyze". TO ME that would dictate that we have empirical proof of existence...not just Faith and our own personal emotions.

So...do you really want what is reasonable or what we emotionally believe?

Answer 7

There is no testable evidence for God or any sort of divinity. Once you allow godmagic as an explanation for anything, the door to irrationality opens wide.

Religious faith is not reasonable by definition.

Answer 8

There can be no true faith without reason. If you have no reason to believe in a creator, then you should have no reason to believe that you are alive. Only very foolish people with zero reasoning would believe there is no God

Answer 9

It's not about what you believe. It's what you know. Religion is not fulfilling if you only believe. If you allow yourself to be led to a belief, you will only know what others have told you and you will not have knowledge when you arrive. Your belief will be baseless, changeable, not comforting, and valueless.

You have to make the journey by yourself. Open your mind, experience life, and surround yourself with knowledge. A belief is fleeting. Knowledge is not.

There are those who know, those who don't, and those who don't want to know.

Answer 10

it's reasonable to beleive in God, because doing so make u always feel that you r not alone even if everybody let u down. God will always be with u and wil give u strengh and when praying to him , u will feel hope that ur prayer will come true some day.