RE: In regard to the rational person's choice
April 27, 2015 at 4:44 pm
(This post was last modified: April 27, 2015 at 4:46 pm by Mohammed1212.)
(April 27, 2015 at 10:37 am)I have a commentPyrrho Wrote:(April 26, 2015 at 6:50 pm)Mohammed1212 Wrote: Hello
I learned that dismissing God stems from the fact that a rational person mustn't believe unless evidence provided. The evidence for believing in God are not compelling as many non-religious folks put it.
Okay but is it logically valid to say that God does NOT exist based on the lack of evidence? Or should we say that God could exist but believing in him is irrational without evidence?
In other words: Is the lack of evidence itself is an evidence?
Am I making sense?
If you can answer this, please help me out here.
See there is a poll here. English is my second language. If this thread is confusing let me know.
Thank you.
First, as a general principle, if there is no evidence, or not sufficient evidence, then one does not know the answer to whatever the question is. So in the total absence of evidence about whether God exists or not, one would simply not know whether God exists or not. In such a case, one should not say: "God exists." Nor, in such a case, should one say: "God does not exist."
However, there are questions where, to use your terminology, "the lack of evidence itself is an evidence." For example, right now, I look in my dining room, and I see no elephants, hear no elephants, and smell no elephants. Given the size of my room, I know that I would see it, etc., if an elephant were there. So I know that there are no elephants in my dining room, from not seeing any elephants there.
In the case of God, it depends greatly on what we mean by "God." If we mean a perfectly benevolent being, who is omniscient and omnipotent, then we can know that such a thing does not exist. The reason is that bad things happen in the world. But if there were such a God, being omniscient, it would know about the bad things happening; being omnipotent, it would have the power to prevent the bad things from happening; and being perfectly benevolent, it would have the inclination to prevent the bad things from happening. Consequently, if such a being existed, bad things would not happen. Since bad things do happen, such a God does not exist.
Naturally, if you have some other idea of a god, like an omniscient and omnipotent being, but one that isn't good, then bad things happening would not prove that such a god did not exist. Such a being, of course, would be pretty evil, given all of the bad things that happen.
Your English seems adequate.
I understand where you're coming from. The problem of evil has been a serious problem for me. I tried to puzzle it out at some point. Muslims scholars have silly answers but few of them share Lane Craig's views. Recently I read a paper ( http://www.mediafire.com/download/ae0vf1...281%29.pdf ). This paper was given to me during an exchange on Twitter. I thought the solution was subtle. The person I was discussing with is big on math and they said that God cannot do the logically impossible. "I've always been keen on math, but I don't have the time to study it". Anyway, my take on this is the following: If God can't do the logically impossible then the logically impossible can be thought of as God. Because it would be more powerful than God.
But in reality my argument doesn't hold good in their eyes. Some religious people think that this is God. And Omnipotent does not entail the ability to do illogical things..
Thank you all for your replies and warm hospitality. I read the replies one by one.
