Why is it illogical to believe that God is real and good?

Question

What takes more faith...to believe that at one time there was absolutely nothing then all of a sudden without anything to influence it, matter came into being and eventually went on to form the complex universe that we study today. Or did matter always just exist because it did...? Why do people argue that God couldnt exist because He doesnt do things in the manner that they expect He should? Unbelievers dont like to hear that God is omniscient and knows better than they do, they view that as a cop-out. But isnt it a bigger cop-out to suppose that you as a mere person could think on the same level as God. You wouldnt expect an unlearned child to understand the complexities of advanced mathematical formulas would you? Then why do you assume you can rightly understand who God is wothout learning His ways? Would a child be correct in stating that physics didnt exist just because he didnt understand the formulas?

OK for all the evidence lovers, where is the evidence that the universe just "poof" came into being. Those who try and point to human suffering as proof that He cannot be good are on equal footing with my six year old son who would swear that even the most basic mathematic formulas are just a random sequence of numbers without meaning. You dont understand it so it could not possibly be so? Thats your proof and evidence?

Answer 1

For those answers above mine....
Is everyone implying this world around us was really an accident? A haphazard incident at just the right moment in infinity?
That, my dear friends, makes no sense.
It is enough proof to me that there is an intelligent Creator when I see a flower bloom at exactly the right time or a horse in motion. That was no accident of the universe.

Answer 2

Where do you get the part about there being ‘nothing’? You certainly do not get it from scientists because everyone knows that the physics of our universe only apply post- Big Bang. It would be accurate do say that we don’t understand the physics prior to that point.

Are you aware that it would more unlikely for life NOT to have appeared on earth than the fact that it did? Do you know that all the ingredients, plus the necessary water-rich environment, necessary for the bio-chemical reactions that fuel the transition from ‘non-living’ to ‘living’ molecules were here in abundance?

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

peppersagooddog –

And, exactly how does the opposite argument make more sense?

Besides, you make the same fundamental error as the questioner. Where do you get the ‘haphazard / incident / accident” crap from? The truth is that you guys make that nonsense up and then claim that science said it just so you can argue against the same stupid point you just made up, isn’t it?

Neither physics nor biological evolution posit any haphazard, pure-random, undirected descriptions or explanations of anything. In fact, it is just the opposite. Science searches for the rules that drive the processes that explain the physical universe we live in.

Try to keep up – and a little education would not do you any harm, either.

------------------------------
edit ---

Your “poof –proof” can be both seen and heard. The ‘Big’ explosion is still visible and the ‘Bang’ can be heard – physically – the sound still lingers.

Where is the sight or sound of your God. Physics says that you (that no one) can see or hear the God you claim exists. We know a great deal about ‘our’ world. We now that to make sound (in order for you to ‘hear’ your God) there must be something ‘physical’ to generate the waves that your hearing detects.

Because we understand the principle of equal-and-opposite force, we know that if your god can make those waves, then he is physical and in our world. If he can push us – we can push back. He cannot be spirit and accessible to us simultaneously.

It is not possible to be able to open and close a door (requires force, friction, etc.) and also be able to pass through it without disturbing it. Whatever pushes on the door receives force back upon itself. And that force prohibits the ‘ghostly’ passing through of objects.

Answer 3

I think its illogical to believe in a super entity with no good evidence but I don't feel what you claim to. I also think feelings are quite subjective and emotional things that we sometime arbitrarily attribute to things without good reason. I personally find no good evidence for the god hypothesis but you feel that you do. Until there is some good tangible evidence that can be verified by all its not illogical to not hold a positive belief in deities.

Answer 4

You can't learn God's ways, because all you have about God is a book written by humans in human language telling you the things that they invented about God. If you want to think that God always existed, you can use the same reasoning to suppose that the world always existed. Why claim the world had to have a creator but God doesn't have to have a creator? Can you think of a more illogical argument to give us than that?

Answer 5

How about some evidence that he exists for a start, just because you say the words does not make it so. Why not believe in the greatness and goodness of the FSM?

And your anolgy is way off the mark, I have no problem understanding your claims in a way a child cannot, they are just not true.

Answer 6

And you answered your own question - "What takes more faith" - some of us are not totally sold on the "faith" thing. We are looking for proof which is the oposite of faith. Your whole approach is brain dead. We don't have all of the answers, but we are LOOKING for them rather than just sitting back and saying faith is all that I need. And a child would not be correct in saying that pyhsics does not exist because the formulas do exist whether they know what they are or not. God MIGHT exist, but definite PROOF of his existance does not. Get a clue.

Answer 7

A child could start learning physics. That's what we did as a species ; started with no knowledge about the world, studied it, and we keep doing so, learning more and more every year. Religion makes people be content with saying "a wizard did it" and never ever look for the real reasons.

Please read "The God Delusion".

And it's illogical to believe because there's absolutely no shred of evidence:

---

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?," commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Answer 8

There is absolutely no evidence that there is a god. It is not reasonable to believe in anything without evidence.

Answer 9

No evidence. You cannot apply logic to reach real-world conclusions about something where there is no real-world evidence. You speak of learning something about god's ways; how can you do this if there is no evidence of god's existence, let alone of his ways? Please read the reference for much more on this.

Answer 10

If you believe God is Good, then there wouldn't be any murder, sickness, or child-abuse, if you believe he is real, then he must be a sadistic bastard, because these things DO exist, therefore, it is illogical to believe that God is both REAL and GOOD.