isn't it rational thinking to come to the conclusion that there is a God due to the fact that if the earth were any farther from the sun or the sea levels any different life could not go on rather then thinking rational by saying that everything came from one micro organism which is unknown to us where that came from is it rational thinking to entrust into a theory pardon my language/grammar..
2006-10-29 04:38:24 · 11 answers · asked by STAR POWER=) 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
no, it is not rational to come to an irrational conclusion based on myth stories, and based on your inability to reconcile some other conclusion other than "oh, it must be god."
2006-10-29 04:40:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. Rational thinking has nothing to do with making up reasons why there might be a creator or god.
Theists, deists, spiritualists, look at the world and think what a wonderful world god, or whoever, made for us.
Atheists look around the world and think. "Wow, isn't this whole universe thing complicated. Why would anyone want to think up an even more complicated and unknowable system(god) to explain this one, which we will never fully understand but at least we can give it a go."
Acceptance of the unknowable is acceptance of defeat in our own abilities.
2006-10-29 12:53:54 · answer #2 · answered by eantaelor 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, actually, that's not rational thinking. If the Earth were much further or closer to the Sun, our form of life would not be capable of evolving on the Earth, and we wouldn't be sitting here asking why it seems so convienent - almost as if the Earth were designed for us. Actually, it's the other way around - we evolved to take the maximum benefit of the Earth. We are here to fit the Earth, not the Earth was made to fit us.
I'm finding it hard to read the rest of your question. If you want to be understood, use punctuation.
2006-10-29 12:45:52 · answer #3 · answered by eri 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no, it's rational to actually check out the facts rather than jump to the first conclusion that seems sensible.
10,000 years ago it seemed rational to assume that the world was flat, that the sun went out at night, that fire was a type of magic, that dancing made it rain, and that the whole shebang was put there by a special powerful man on a cloud.
I'm suggesting that we've made progress since then. And that we didn't do it by taking one look at the world and go; i bet i know how that happened.
2006-10-29 12:45:08 · answer #4 · answered by wimbledon andy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, this isn't rational. What's rational is saying that since such conditions exist, it makes sense that life in this form could take place here. Rational would be saying that, while this is consistent with an intelligent creator, there are other viable solutions.
2006-10-29 13:10:57 · answer #5 · answered by Phil 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. That's definitely not rational. That's a rational flaw. That's a rationally dishonest reasoning (not that I'm calling YOU dishonest), because you're leaving out of your reasoning the possibility that this happened for ANY other reason, even for one we still don't know about. Accepting we don't know everything is rationally honest.
2006-10-29 12:43:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Logic and Rationality do not have inherent conclusions about the world. They only test the strength and validity of arguments.
2006-10-29 12:43:23 · answer #7 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am no scientist but your rationalization has a flaw. If conditions on this planet were different, than the life on this planet would have evolved differently in accordance with those conditions.
2006-10-29 12:51:30 · answer #8 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
not at all, if life on earth is somehow proof that there is a god, does that mean that all the other planets that are either too close or too far away for there to be life can be counted as proof that there is no god?
2006-10-29 12:52:06 · answer #9 · answered by Nick F 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lol. Life evolved around the conditions on earth. Earth did not evolve around the conditions we need to live.
2006-10-29 12:51:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋