jump to last post 1-50 of 271 discussions (1695 posts)

Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?

  1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
    Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago

    The short answer is, "Yes."

    Should he or she, though?

    My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes."

    Can I understand why some or many rational individuals would have difficulty with the very notion of believing in any God?  Again, "Yes."

    I was raised in a Holiness Church in Southern Appalachia, back in the day when most of the country was not influenced bys such beliefs.  It was in a small town, with small town values and a small town outlook -- parochial, extremely miopic and limited.

    I began questioning my religion by the time I was 5 or so; I intensly tried to believe what I was told -- the imminent end of the world, the angry God who will judge us all, speaking in tongues as a sign of salvation.  I lived in mortal terror 24 hours a day, and in guilt.  By the age of 12, I refused to go back to church anymore -- I had no good replacement for the beliefs, but I knew I could not live up to what was demanded, and I saw no one else was living up to the demands, either.

    I began studying other forms of Christianity -- I had a few Catholic friends, hardly devout, but who had an alternate take on Christianity.  I studied world religions, mysticism; you name it, I  read about it.  I affiliated myself with nothing, but made it up as I went.  I suppose I was still a Christian in some sense, but had no notion of what traditional, historical Christianity taught as I'd never been exposed to it.

    In college, I began studying philosophy.  Especially Nietzsche, whom I loved and still admire.  And this quickly led to questioning the need for any belief at all in any deity, for many of the reasons many people who post here advance -- and this led to atheism.

    However, as an atheist, I never became a dogmatist.  I could not accept that God's existence is by definition impossible, so all rational dicussion of the existence of God was pointless.  My intellectual exhaustion with God and religion never advanced that far.  I did think I'd never seen a proof God's existence was possible -- as a good philosopher, I remained open to it, if I ever saw it.

    Eventually, I ran into the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and a refinements of one of his famous 5 Proofs of the Existence of God by a contemporary philosopher called Mortimer J. Adler.  I realized that, if Adler had not proven God exists, he had proven God is possible -- it would not be irrational to believe in God.

    He had not proven this or that religious view was correct -- but he had shown traditional religious views do not contradict anything we can know, or should not.  So I began, tentatively, to explore philosophy of religion as both an undergrad and grad student.

    I found traditional positions on many of the issues that had perplexed me -- Did God create evil?Why is the creation imprefect? and so forth.  I found many bad answers, but I also found many good ones -- more than that, I realized that our ancestors were not gullible fools, did not take belief lightly, and did have doubts about God and faith they wrestled with daily, strongly.  The record of these philosophical and theological struggles were just as much a part of religion as the scriptures, and one could not come to scripture adequately without a knowledge of these.  Else one would attempt to reinvent the wheel.

    The belief one must reinvent the wheel in one's own life in order to have an authentic belief and not be "part of the herd" is certainly egoistic -- but it isn't individualistic.  Tradition supports the individual -- the individual character is born,not out of a wholesale rejection of the past because "I did not create it," but out of receiving what the past hands us, examining it, creatively adding to, correcting where we can, and refining our inheritence in some small way, and then handing on what we have received to the community of people called humanity.

    Life is a conversation with the past and a struggle with it, not an outright rejection and refusal to closely examine it for what truth might be available in the struggles of our ancestors.  It is mere hubris to assume I am the first person to wonder, "If God is perfect, why is there evil?" and so on -- it is sheer temerity to assert that only the flimsiest of answers to that and other questions I have heard from people within my own limited experience are the best answers anyone has ever given on these subjects.

    Belief and unbelief BOTH take work if they are to truly be rational or reasonable. They BOTH take a knowledge of history and theology and philosophy -- and these are hard-won, not easy, not simple, and less simplistic matters.

    In the end, I converted to the Roman Catholic Church -- later, I left it because of its intolerance of so many people with differences.  Eventually, I became an Episcopalian, an Anglican, because that communion allows me to ask questions, respects my mind, and we by and large agree to disagree about many things while accepting one another and practicing our common liturgy inherited from the time of the Apostles.

    I am a philosopher.  I believe in God.  I hold that a belief in God is not irrational or stupid, and I hold that the traditions of ancient Christianity and Judaism, from which Christianity emerged, are not superstitious, foolish, short-sighted, or best accepted on sheer blind faith. 

    Certainly, one may follow the herd and believe because "they" say to do so.  But then again one may accept many scientific positions for the same reason, and many do -- they repeat, not because they fully understand why, but because the word "science" is magical for them and represents an alliance with something infallible and unquestionable. 

    Orthodox scientists do NOT do this; neither do orthodox Christians, Jews, or anyone else with a reasonable religious belief.  The drive to memorize and parrot the letter of anything without knowing the spirit of truth in it is simply a general human failing born of laziness, a failing that can be located wherever humans are, whatever humans are doing; and the drive to criticize what one does not fully understand grants one a false sense of victory over a foe that does not even exist in the first place -- this is equally a failing born of laziness and a logical fallacy called a "straw man argument." 

    It is, thus, irrational, ironically.

    1. emdi profile image72
      emdiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very nice. You should have written this as a hub.
      The fact is that, people who believe in evolution has not really understood it, neither can they explain many of the basic questions. If you ask them, they will say all started from a single cell. Where did this cell come from? Can someone explain the complexity of a single cell ? the evolution of complexity? Its not a random process that is happening inside a cell, every protein has specific roles to perform. If you ask any of these questions their answer will be: you are a stupid religions guy. You don't have any rational, no brain..............


      Thanks for sharing your experience...

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think you misunderstand the use of the term "cell" as it pertains to evolution.

        1. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          This seems to be a vital misunderstanding to be able to say "belief" in evolution is exactly the same as "belief" in a god.....

    2. Flightkeeper profile image79
      Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Emdi has a great point, you should make a hub about this experience Richard. Please include the texts that you have found helpful in your journey, I would like to read them since they haven't been a part of my education.

    3. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I was an atheist and then the answer was obviously No.

      Then I gained enlightenment and got my proof of god but I would say a rational individual must accept that god exists is a false statement.

      You have the likes of Paraglider and Earnesthub on this forum , intelligent and well read, probably more than most believers on this forum and they dont believe god exists which is in a way proof that a rational individual doesn't have to believe in God. .

      1. 0
        Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don`t really believe any person with a superior intellect truly is an athiest.They don`t go together.

        1. mohitmisra profile image60
          mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There is really nothing rational or logical about god as he is beyond any rationality of logic.You will fail to understand god if you use your mind in any scientific way we know or any rational way.

          Some atheists were rational enough to say kind words about my books rankings and understood me to a good extent even though they didn't believe in god .

          Some believers called me  lucifer because my work is ranked next to the Bible, Quran and Bhagwta Gita, what sort of rationality is that?

          You have rational and logical believers as well as unbelievers.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Amen to it.

          1. Evolution Guy profile image61
            Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That is some genuine, honest christian-love right there.

      2. Richard VanIngram profile image80
        Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        My claim isn't that a rational person must believe in God.  That would be misguided and mistaken.  What I think is that there are good reasons to think a Deity exists --- and, given that, it is not unreasonable and a complete waste of time for a rational person to develop religious beliefs.

        Conversely, having been, for a period, an atheist, I fully understand and respect why an intelligent person would be led to have no belief in any Deity.  With one stipulation: Anyone who does not belive God exists should be, on principle, open to hearing out rational arguments in favor of God's existence -- to give them a fair hearing.

        Then again, I think it is incumbent on those who believe in the existence of God to take seriously arguments and evidence that contradicts their positions as well.

        Truth, inasmuch as it is truth, has nothing to fear from being challenged or questioned.  Any position that sees itself as above hearing arguments that contradict or correct it -- atheist, theist, polytheist, pantheist, whatever -- is just dogma by another name, blind faith, no reason involved.

        My best friend to this day is an atheist.  The last thing I'd do is insult him by thinking he is less than intelligent for holding that position -- for him, it was the result of honest effort.  We have wonderful, if at times consternating discussions -- but he is closer to me than blood kin and our separate beliefs do not drive us apart.

        As Voltaire famously said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I would die to defend your right to say it."  I respect the intellectual rights and consciences of all people that much -- but, in return, I expect the same courtesy.

        I do not deny the intelligence of others in their beliefs -- do not deny mine.

        1. mohitmisra profile image60
          mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          it is not unreasonable and a complete waste of time for a rational person to develop religious beliefs.

            True this happened with me.

          I do not deny the intelligence of others in their beliefs -- do not deny mine -

          This is  difficult have a look at some of the other forums there is this joker called marineallways ,a bouncer who thinks the prophets are arrogant idiots.
          I showed him my work-books rankings and he just keeps mocking it and tells me to be self aware while he has no idea of the self. smile

          This world is full of idiots who will call an intelligent one an idiot. smile
          this has happened since eons.

          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein smile

          1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
            Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You gave me a good smile,there.  Much truth in a few words.

            The musician Frank Zappa once said, "The most common element in the universe isn't hydrogen, it's stupidity."  He and old Al were on the same wavelength, I think!

            1. mohitmisra profile image60
              mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              And we are also on the same wave length , debating with you is such a pleasure , no ugliness at all, thanks smile

              Zappa is correct. smile

              1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                And thank you -- there is no real anger in you.  That is a good thing to encounter.

                1. mohitmisra profile image60
                  mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  smile  I do get angry when abused as I am sick and tired of it but with someone like you I can have a rational debate which is a joy smile

                  Scholars since ages have been known to debate and it can  be a healthy debate but this requires intelligence from both sides.smile

    4. mobilephone guide profile image59
      mobilephone guideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      yes of course. we are living contradictions after all. one says, we can, others say we cannot. we say we can save the world, human needs says it's contrary. we say we are "free", but there is no such thing as "free". freedom, human needs, gradual destruction of the planet... i know one thing that can solve all these, human extinction. but we choose to live.

      the whole human race is contradiction.

    5. JYOTI KOTHARI profile image76
      JYOTI KOTHARIposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It can be yes or no. However it depends upon personal believe and thinking.

      Even those speaking of rational thinking are irrational in many places.

      Big bang theory is not proved yet but it is considered scientific.

      Denying God is basically a fashion. It has little to do with rationality.

      Thanks,
      Jyoti Kothari

      1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
        Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Pretty much agreed.

        Thank you.

    6. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with your short answer.  I am a rational person, and I also believe in GOD.  People argue science and religion for an explanation of what existed, what exists, and what is to come.  The only difference is when science fails to explain something, scientists say we haven't quite figured that out yet.  While the religious rely on faith.  I believe science is an attempt to explain what GOD created, but science will never completely fulfill the explanation of what GOD created.

    7. Friendlyword profile image60
      Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sir I'm a gay man. I love God but I hate religion because people use it as a weapon against me. God and religion are two complete different things. Cults are dangerous. God is love.
      I writing to you the people in the forum because I do not have children. I am not a part of any religious group. Maybe some of you can do something about this.
      While I was in a forum discussiing gay issues, a religious person started to attack me. Another person came to my defense, her name is Cosette. While she was talking with that person; the subject of brainwashing came up. She posted a link on the subject. I think everyone with children, and everyone that claims to have some type of belief in God, will do something about this Absolute Horror. For Gods Sake.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

      1. ediggity profile image61
        ediggityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Dude, just rememeber, in the end, only GOD can judge you.

        1. Friendlyword profile image60
          Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you. I'm a man, I can take care of myself. These children really have no one protecting them.

      2. Richard VanIngram profile image80
        Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am an Episcopalian.

        We have an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson -- this caused some controversy in the more "evangelical" minority in our faith, but the majority stood up for him and for their gay friends and relatives that are as welcome at the Table of Our Lord as anyone else.

        My church welcomes all people, period.  Without judgment.  It's an ideal we strive for.

        We do not teach exclusion; we teach inclusion,tolernace, welcoming.  It's one of the reasons I became an Episcopalian and why I both believe in God and practice a religious tradition.

        There is no "brainwashing" going on in my particular faith, unless teaching our children to be acceting of all people is "brainwashing".

        I know this is not the case in Fundamentalist sects and Right Wing Evangelical circles, even in some extremly conservative Catholic circles.  I grew up in one of the most conservative and purist Holiness sects imaginable -- I lived a monk-like life, was not allowed to associate with people socially unless they were of similar beliefs, did not set foot in a movie theatre till I was 15 (3 years after I left that faith, it left such scars on my thinking).  But light peeked in, I did have friends "on the side" with a variety of viewpoints -- I learned to think and decide for myself.

        I certainly would not sell myself back into bondage after such an experience.

        I am responding to you specifically because you used my post to bring your message, a genuine one.  I expect no one to convert to my religion or any religion -- each of us has her or his own path.  Mine just happened to lead the way it did, and I don't regret it presently.

    8. video lost profile image60
      video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Dear Richard,

      It is terrible that for so many years you were not introduced with Islam-The Ultimate Art of Living for the whole of Mankind. The church did'nt showed you any of the Biblical verses which predicts about the last and final messenger Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Your Holy Bibles direct towards Islam very clearly. Islam is the only religion which answers any of the philosophical questions very perfectly, in search of which people made the lives of themselves and others miserable.

      I too had gone through many stages and questions which irritated me but whenever i compared the answers of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and other ISM based philosophical ideologies; i found Islam to be in a tip top position with balanced approaches to any of the problems or issues related to indivisual or society.

    9. 60
      Robert E. Bargerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hopefully the door is still open to the supernatural things of God. God is alsome! Ask God to prove to you he is real.

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Many years ago, when I didn't know what I now know, I prayed to GOD, because I was part of religion. I asked him to end my life.

        I prayed for 6 years. I asked priests, "Why he wouldn't answer my prayer?"

        The priest said, "He won't take your life, you must give your life to him."

        Right then and there....I knew GOD didn't exist. And I began researching.

        Which lead to my enlightenment of life and the reality of "GOD" was a lie.

        It hurt, I was angry. But, then I realized, I am a self-responsible person. I have a consciousness, which tells me I am alive. I know what's right and wrong, because I understand life.

        Context of what the priest told me, "Suicide" was the only option. And if "GOD" was arrogant enough to force me to destroy what he supposedly created....then he couldn't possibly be, what "religion" portrays him to be.

        1. spiderpam profile image58
          spiderpamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          If everything is subjective. How can you really trust your conclusion. You don't a priest to tell you about God just go to God. Ask with sincerely “Are you there God?, If so reveal yourself. I want to know you, and just prepare yourself you for a true enlightenment. Unfortunately, I fear your heart in too hardened for logic and all you have is subjective babble.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It is simple enough. We do not believe the bible. smile

    10. 60
      fogalwaysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "all that I do, ye to can do"

      www.the10thjesus.org

      Some have questions, yet get no answers. 

      Others have answers, but get asked no questions.

      The truth will set YOU free.

  2. Evolution Guy profile image61
    Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago

    Actually, the short answer is "no."

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How about giving me the long answer why "No" is the only acceptable response?

      Pithy is cute. But it is often unhelpful in a serious consideration of any subject.

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Are you actually looking for a serious consideration of the subject?

        You asked and answered your own question with a rather rambling diatribe on your various dabblings in a wide varieties of religions but did not actually posit any rational reason for believing in a god. You also made a standard assumption that "god exists" with all the questions you asked yourself.

        "I hold that a belief in God is not irrational," does not really make a rational argument other than stating another absolute.

        Just because you hold that a belief in god is not irrational, will not make it so and that is all you have really stated.

        1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
          Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And your argument to the contrary was . . .?  I don't see it.  Maybe part of your post was cut off?  Show me how to make the argument -- I'm a bit weak in this area.

          1. Evolution Guy profile image61
            Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Let's put it this way. You have made a statement:

            "I hold that a belief in God is not irrational."

            This is an absolute statement with nothing whatsoever to back it up. Yet you are asking me to refute it?

            This sounds awfully like, "There is no 100% proof that God does not exist, therefore He does."

            You are the one needing to justify a wholly irrational belief.

            Please be my guest. Once you have done so, I will happily refute it. Let's start with - "there is absolutely no evidence of a God," shall we?

            1. 0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Why would there be evidence of a God? Why does he have to back up his belief? Prove to me God doesn't exist!

              1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I think I can back up my belief and show that it is, at the very least, not unreasonable.  But you are right -- I offered no proof and any attack on my position really does need to be followed with a proof God can't exists and that I am a total fool.

                Evolution Guy, however, is being coy.  So, maybe he will tell me his answer to that question if I ask him a few questions in return.

                1. 0
                  A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Can you prove God does not exist? I can't prove that he does, and I don't believe anyone can prove he doesn't, but constantly calling Christians irrational for their beliefs is irrational.

                  1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                    Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think anyone has ever offered a completely irrefutable proof God exists, and no one may ever be able to.  But there are proofs that strongly suggest He is possible, and those arguments are better, I think, than the arguments that He does not.  But I agree -- calling a Christian or anyone else "irrational" for having a belief is a knee-jerk, emotionalistic response without offering good evidence and argument to the contrary to go along with the claim.

            2. Richard VanIngram profile image80
              Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That's better.

              I never claimed I was going to prove anything with what I said in my post.  It was a statement of belief and a narrative of the journey i took to get to that end. 

              Think of it as if I issued a challenge -- "Here's my square of land I'm willing to defend; do you want to dispute my claim?"

              I suppose you do, then.

              Let's begin with the preliminaries:

              Define "God."  When we say "God" or "god," what do we mean?

              If we are not talking about the same concept, this will take much more time than it needs to.

              1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You have already defined God. Although I do not claim to be an expert in religion, you said, "Eventually, I became an Episcopalian, an Anglican," so that is where we must start.

                But - we digress from your original statement that  a rational person can believe in God.

                And you have yet to justify this position. There is no evidence of the Anglican God. Yet you still believe. In spite of the absolute lack of evidence. You are even prepared to reject all the other Gods - for which there is an equal lack of evidence.

                Now explain it in a rational manner.

                1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                  Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No.  We are going to start from this position:

                  When we say "God," what do we mean?

                  What is the bare, minimal definition of God.  I'm not interested in arguing anyone should be an Anglican or anything else.  I am interested in arguing that God, insofar as the concept of God has commonalities across all faiths and all philosophies, has an accepted definition.

                  I want to be sure you and I are talking about the same concept.

                  Failure toget our definition right at the outset will lead to a discussion that is a waste of everyone's time.  It has already gone on a few posts too long.

                  I asked a simple question; please try to give me a simple (or complex) response, I don't care which.  Otherwise, move along as you are not interested in having a serious conversattion with me and these boards contain other playgrounds for you.

                  1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't understand. You went so far as to explain that you believe in God. You believe in the Anglican God and this is rational.


                    Now you are using the only tool available to you. And a popular one amongst your kind.

                    SEMANTICS

                    Yet you expect a rebuttal.

                    As I stated in the beginning, this sounds awfully like, "There is no proof that God does not exist, therefore He does and I do not need to justify that."

                    And you were oddly dissatisfied with my simple answer:

                2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Dr. Knowles I presume?

                3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                  Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry I came late. The faith in God is here for 6000 years. Then Mr. Darwin came and people assumed that there is an evolution and there is no God. Since you are late (200 years plus) you must make points of proof. We do not claim we have a proof we heave the faith.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    A government created faith.

                  2. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                    Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Read me very carefully.

                    I never said I have proof my faith is rational.  What I think I have is a good, rational argument that my faith is not irrational to hold and not foolish -- it is fit for a thinking person, meaningful, not a waste of time.  It squares up with much of what we can know by reason, is not opposed to the various sciences, philosophy, history, mathematics, and so forth.

                    I think, even without religious faith, a purely rational, secular person has reason to suspect a God exists.

                4. Margie01 profile image60
                  Margie01posted 7 years ago in reply to this
                  1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                    Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Did it, somewhere back between pages 12 and 20, I think, and elaborated on my explanation.

                    My explanation was ignored, side-stepped, and I was insulted for the effort.

              2. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Hello people,

                I just wanted to jump in here for a minute, just so I get the gist- you two are debating about belief in God?

                Someone has belief in God. I read the opening hub and found the reading nicely written, a few mistakes and makes for an honest read.

                How ever, why in the world would to people debate about a non-existent entity, never known to exist. There is nothing anywhere that says "Humankind" answers to anyone.

                We don't answer to anyone, but ourselves. You have a human consciousness and can make decisions. That's all you're required to do.

                If you want to jump in to religion or churchs, please step off, they are nothing but a bunch of branches of the #1 hook-line and sinker "Business" on the planet. Relgion makes more money than 90% of the World economies put together.

                You want a suckers bet....religion. Great reading, bad interpretation. Completely out of context!

                Sorry. But, I did enjoy reading what you wrote.

                Have fun people.

                1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                  Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you.  Seriously.  I can actually enjoy -- and understand perfectly -- the spirit in which this is written and intended.

            3. TheLoanConsultant profile image59
              TheLoanConsultantposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What would be considered evidence of God's existence exactly? What would be considered as evidence of lifeforms on other planets? The criteria used to measure credible evidence in support of lifeforms on other planets should be the same criteria used to measure the evidence weighed in support of God's existence: If we have the courage to be consistent. If we found evidence of a civilization on the Moon we would conclude that there must have been life on the moon at some point in time in the moons history. So if I conclude that there is a Creator after observing the marvels of the human heart, the human brain, DNA, photosynthesis, precipitation, and many other precise operations necessary for life and also life on this planet I doubt to think that I am being unreasonable.

              1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Anything really. Except - "oh look at that - a tree - that proves I am too ignorant to understand how that could come into being without an invisible super being that gave us His one son to save us from Sin that we are born into - But only if you grovel to the super being."

                Dear oh dear. Sorry you have decided to waste your life and the only thing that makes you feel better is scaring other people into believing in jeebus too. sad

                Well done. You must be very proud. Especially being a money lender consultant  and all.

                1. TheLoanConsultant profile image59
                  TheLoanConsultantposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You say anything would be acceptable as evidence. Well by definition "anything" would very include the tree you just mentioned. So again, what would meet the criteria of acceptable evidence? And please be a little more precise & spare me your games, I don't have all day, I have to do some more loans soon smile

                  1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Odd. See - the tree - well that is proof that the TREE god exists.

                    Or are u saying that the TREE god - who sent his only daughters (400,00000000 of them) to have sex with the tree monster to prove that we are all dead in reality - is the same as your god who was Zeus?

                    Or - you can provide any sOrt of proof really.

                    Anytime.

                    Waiting.

                    Whenever.

                    You being in touch with God and all - you already know whatr will work.

                    Any of the biblical proofs is fine.

                    Yeah,

                    Whenever...........

                2. TheLoanConsultant profile image59
                  TheLoanConsultantposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  "Oh look at that - a snowflake! smile

                  1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Therefore the snow god created us....

  3. rhamson profile image77
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    Wow! what a great honest post! Refreshing! I believe that you are still open to something while the search is continuing.  Dwelling in the unknown is a scary place that few choose because of the comfortable state most like to live in.

    I also believe and continue to understand what I can without being deterred by the easy answer and the complacy that brings. The ancient Incas who where masters at math were the first to introduce the value of "0" to mathmatics.  That is a hard reality and took awhile to understand.  The absense of something still having value.

    In the absense of true knowledge I find it comforatable to believe in possibility.  Much knowledge can make you weary and cynical but possibility opens you up to learn and make great gains in your understandings.

    All I can say is wait and see what is learned on your journey.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you very much, Rhamson.  That was the true spirit of how I offered the post.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        While I am not a Christian in the truest sense I believe God is wanting an open and inquisitive mind to teach.

        And for all those that are going to flame me for my post I CHOOSE to believe in God and not proove it to you.

  4. rhamson profile image77
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    Wow! what a great honest post! Refreshing! I believe that you are still open to something while the search is continuing.  Dwelling in the unknown is a scary place that few choose because of the comfortable state most like to live in.

    I also believe and continue to understand what I can without being deterred by the easy answer and the complacy that brings. The ancient Incas who where masters at math were the first to introduce the value of "0" to mathmatics.  That is a hard reality and took awhile to understand.  The absense of something still having value.

    In the absense of true knowledge I find it comforatable to believe in possibility.  Much knowledge can make you weary and cynical but possibility opens you up to learn and make great gains in your understandings.

    All I can say is wait and see what is learned on your journey.

  5. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    A guy in a white robe that lives on a cloud and eternally cooks sinners for dinner? Sure, a rational individual can believe that lol

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nice pic Misha! I like that one the best so far. big_smile Well... besides the Saint Misha pic anyways.

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOL Thanks Sandy, trying to do my best to impress you smile

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You don't have to do that.  You had me at hello. smile

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            LOL For some reason I still want to smile  ♥

    2. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't believe that.  Why would I?

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well, most people here seem to presume just that, when speaking of "God". smile

        However, if you do not insist on God having this form, and rather are talking about the power that is way bigger than what we can comprehend, I frankly don't see how a rational person can deny it's existence. smile

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe how you describe it sounds a bit far fetched if you take the literal translation but how do you proove the emotion of love but through feelings? Sure you can say I did this and that to proove my love but it still is something that cannot be prooven but through action and not text books. Why can't the possibility of God exist by merely believing in it?

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Love and Christian god don;t go together well. smile

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Two different subjects.  Is the belief in God predicated by a belief in the ministry of Jesus the Christ?  I don't think so.  If it were true than more people would believe in one religion exclusively.

          Is there a possibility that there is a God for lack of an agreed term? No proof either way.  You either believe in a way that is comforatable to you or you don't.  I choose to believe in God based on my life experiences and whether there is a true way to manifest it I dwell in the I don't know.  I study all and give possibility to all as a choice.  I won't hold your belief against you and won't try judge or demean your belief or non belief.

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Umm, yeah, OK, so what? smile

          2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            God created material but He is Spirit and why demand to prove material way of something that is not material?

    4. 0
      Marc Salyerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I've heard TV preachers refute evolutionists and atheists with quips like, "maybe your grandaddy was a monkey but my grandaddy was an engineer with a college education." And as someone who believes in a divine creator I always thought they sounded dumb because they painted a picture of evolutionists that is dishonest and absurd. That kind of juvenile rhetoric demeans the one presenting it and that person usually doesn’t get it. They just keep walking along through life with that same silly grin all over their face thinking they’ve said something really witty while everyone rolls their eyes and groans.

    5. 61
      Kat60posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Misha, God is real. As a survivor of a deadly crash, he was not only there with me, but showed me the ENTIRE accident before it happened and promised me I would be fine! I not only heard him, but saw him as well- very powerful and NO One  will ever convince me God is not real. Keep searching, he will find you!

      1. tantrum profile image59
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why god would help you and save you, and don't save millions of hungry babies in Africa, for example? Why are you so important? Can't you see the arrogance in what you said? yikes

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Glad you lived but I don't buy it. Do you still see and talk to God?


        Why did God favor you and not innocent children born with deadly diseases?

      3. 61
        EMMORECHEMposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        you are rigth. God is real!

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          A real government.

  6. Aya Katz profile image90
    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

    Misha, how do you know he's wearing a white robe?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, wait a minute... it's a red robe right?  A robe covered in blood.

      1. 0
        bloodnlatexposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        A robe covered in blood?  Now you've got my attention!

    2. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL Have you ever been to Christian church Aya? They have a lot pics depicting their deity, ya know. smile

      1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
        Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You ever look in a physics textbook? They've got a lot of mathematical formulas depicting theoretical particles they cannot and will never see.

        Having a symbolic representation of something one cannot experience with the senses is hardly far-fetched for rational beings.

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, most of the Christians seem to take this symbolic literally, including those who draw the pictures. smile

          1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
            Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, but we do not define a subject by those least qualified to understand it.

            Take on the strongest, not the weakest.

            1. Misha profile image75
              Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              On that level Judeo-Christian bunch seem to overcomplicate things comparing say to zen. You probably were brought up Christian, so Christian terminology and symbolic are more natural for you to use, but for a person brought up without any religion - like me - eastern philosophies make much more sense. smile

              1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Which is fine, but even Buddhists have religious art and many followers of Buddah take those images and symbols literally -- even though the philosophy of the Buddha gives no reason to do so.  If I made remarks about eastern philosophy based on the worst or most ignorant representatives, it would be quite easy to dismiss the whole thing.

          2. 0
            Just Joyceposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I've done some of those "pictures" and I can tell you that it isn't "most Christians" that take them literally. In the Orthodox Church there exists an extensive system of symbols to be used carefully and exactly in order to indicate different themes, events and persons important to the faith. And while our ascension icon includes both a "cloud" and a white robe - the nimbus (the cloud) is actually there to indicate that no one saw this event take place and the white robe is a symbol of the purity and divinity of Christ. Catholicism has a similar system of symbols, even if they are a bit less particular about its application. And the Anglicans, by and large have an understanding of God that includes a more nuanced view than eating sinners for supper. Many Protestants do too.

            Of the estimated 2.1 billion Christians on the planet, 50% of them are Catholic, 11% of them are Eastern Orthodox and I believe 4% are Anglican. Which brings the tally to 65% of Christians whose church would reject your caricature of God. Of course, then there are the iconoclastic sects of Protestantism who would reject it on the very basis of its being an image - too much danger that someone will take it literally.

            I think that more accurately put the statement would have to read: "Most Evangelical American Christians take this symbolism literally".

            Please be careful when you lump us all together as simply "Christians". I want to kick some of them off the team just as badly as they'd like to throw out the Pope and Patriarchs.

  7. 0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    The question is, can a rational individual believe in God? Yes. Why? Because reason and religion are more similar philosophically than they are different. Reason is really just secular religion.

    Both systems start from a position of raw belief, both embrace determinism and causality as the main ways to explain how the world works, and if you trace reason back to Descartes you see the direct historical relationship with religion there too.

    Reason is basically religion's rebellious secular brother. Reason and religion always look like they are fighting because they are trying to occupy the same piece of intellectual turf. It's sibling rivalry.

    People like to talk about how irrational religion is, yet logic sets some very arbitrary rules that are based on not much beyond the fact that you need those rules to make logic work. If that's not arbitrary, what is?

    Talking about God as a big guy in the sky degrades the discussion but this is the internet after all, not Harvard. smile

    I mean, we're here to degrade the discussion. If we had something valuable to say we'd be curing cancer or running a church or something.

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's just the song that never ends as it goes on and on... Reasonable and rational concept, there was a beginning.  Irrational and unreasonable concept, there was a beginning and in the beginning was a magical superior being who looked and talked and walked like Jesus who spoke the world he was already sitting in, into existence.

      Reasonable and rational concept... belief.  From one "thing" came all things.  Irrational and unreasonable concept... belief, that one thing was a man who had the ability to even speak his own self without a mouth into existence. lol 

      smile

    2. 0
      zampanoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      smile you're so very right!

      But I'll leave my point of view participating in this degradation :

      A man is not "rational" just because he would like to.
      A man is driven by most different forces and rationality is
      a relatively recent invention.
      Evolution left ancestral layers in living creature's nervous systems.
      The history of creation leaves it's marks across time.
      A man is not an exception to this.
      A bit rational, a bit supersticious, there's no major incompatibility in that.
      Never expect men to be an achieved, finished product.
      A 21st century man becomes adult after having gone through phases of evolution same as an aborigene.
      And a 21st century child experiences the same pulsions as a child from the paleolithic.

      Nowdays man is a creature that tries to run 21st century software on a hardware dating from cro-magnon.

      Discussions like this, can be explained by that fact.
      We're looking for something and often turn around in circles.

      So, I may build solid concrete bridges that will last for centuries or rockets that go to the moon,
      have a beautiful wife and beautiful children, an affectuous dog
      and still not having my soul fulfilled just with knowledge and happyness...

      In this sense, I would admit that a rational man can have methaphysical beliefs.

      1. 0
        pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I LOVE your post!

        Well said. We make it into this dog-chasing-its tail kind of thing. It doesn't have to be. Thank you.

  8. 0
    Just Joyceposted 7 years ago

    A rational person can believe in a god/pantheon. Claiming to know that there is a god (any god) in some sort of quantifiable way however would run contrary to rationalism as it is generally understood.

    I believe that there's a god, the Christian one, in fact, but I don't know that I'm correct, nor can I prove his existence. I don't think that makes me irrational. One can be thoughtfully religious.

    But those of us that are, or try to be, don't make for good television or news headlines so we're not the face of religion that gets the most attention.

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So your saying you are irrational?  Maybe I misunderstood what you just wrote.

      1. 0
        Just Joyceposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, I'm not. I'm a rational person. The sky is blue, gravity works, and dinosaurs are not a conspiracy to trick people into thinking that the Earth is older than it is.

        I'm trying to point out that there's a difference between belief and knowledge. I cannot prove that God exists using evidence and/or logic, therefore, I cannot know that God exists. But, I can believe that God exists based on my experience, culture and certain personal observation about history and man's attachment to ritual. Holding a belief does not entail that I be able to prove that belief to be true.

        It's a little like voting. If I decide to vote for the challenger, who has never served, then I can't really look into his voting record, or past service as a politician. So, I can't know in advance that he is going to deliver on all his promises - I can't prove it - but I can believe he will without being irrational.
        Or, I've never been to China. I've heard people talk about it, I've seen photos. But I've also heard people discuss Tolkien's Middle Earth, and I saw the movies. Technically, I cannot prove either's existence, but I believe nonetheless that China exists in this world and that Middle Earth exists only in the imagination. All without being irrational.

        It's sorta the same thing with religious beliefs; I can't know that there's a god, but I can believe it.

        1. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So - it is irrational?

          Even to the point that you are making comparisons to suggest that God is the same as China.

          There are "God" restaurants on every street corner. With small,  "god" people speaking "god's language" and telling you that the Great Wall of god Is there on the satellite images....

          God - China - exactly the same thing.

          Perfectly rational.

          Believe in one - you MUST believe the other. Same thing really......

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            NO! It's not the same as China, oy where do you get your beliefs from? lol  Everyone knows it is the same as Brazil.  Brazil not China... oh wait maybe it was Taiwan...

          2. 0
            Just Joyceposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Obviously, I'm not being clear. So, I'll try once more to articulate my point. I don't think that my inability to rationally prove that God exists is mutually exclusive to holding the belief that he does. It would, however, be mutually exclusive to saying that I know he does.

            1. Evolution Guy profile image61
              Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              No - you are being perfectly clear.

              You have no rational basis for believing in god.

              You just do.

              Why try to rationalize it?

              1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Just logic. Do you think it is rational that something developed by itself (I give you trillion years)? Then you must believe computer evolved by itself. ]

  9. 0
    Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago

    I think in the end part of the difficulty in proving the existence of God, is that we are always speaking from a standpoint of what we BELIEVE, is it rational always? NO, some of my faith in God has come from some of the most irrational things and times in my life. But we also remember that for hundreds of years the most rational people in science knew that the earth was the center of the Universe and that it was definitely flat, based on their observations. To the unbeliever faith is irrational but to the believer to not have it is irrational. I have faith that if i turn the faucet on there will be water, based on my observations. Just as I base my faith in God on what I have observed in my life. How can I tell anyone about their own faith though when I have no clue about what they have observed, it would be like telling a plane crash victim that air travel is safe. This continued effort to somehow belittle both believer and non and to establish a rule for creditability is sick and stupid and more importantly a waste of time. If you believe then good for you now go live your life and show your faith by your deeds, if you don't believe hey good for you too, now go live your life and stop worrying about all the lost irrational believers, why do you care anyway?

    I would love to see one proven fact based sentence by either party to demonstrate their claims, in the absence of that it is all just one revolving circle of theories and beliefs. Learn to accept your own thoughts and stop trying to transfer your views onto another, that's what kids are for.

    1. Evolution Guy profile image61
      Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No evidence of god. None.

      1. 0
        Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Nice try but once again this is from your perspective and not something even a believer would have to accept, see the problem now, I could just as easily answer that the whole world is proof of God, To believers this would be true to you its not.

        1. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not really. Unless you are saying that "evidence" is all a matter of perspective. Therefore Santa Claus is real......

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Santa Clause is real. I caught him kissing my mom when I was a kid and noticed his shoes.  I didn't realize at the time that Santa Clause was really my dad but his Nike's were a dead giveaway.

          2. 0
            Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Here's one for you I believe in God and evolution and think both support the other, as far as evidence, there are millions of children who believe in Santa Clause, and millions believed until recently that ours was the only star with planets around it, given the evidence, that's the thing evidence is always changing along with theories, and .....beliefs.

            1. 0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe God created evolution.

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe evolution created god? doh!

                1. 0
                  A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  How?

                  1. 0
                    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    You tell me since you seem to know how a a man god who didn't exist can speak himself into existence. wink

            2. Evolution Guy profile image61
              Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Clearly you do not understand evolution then. wink

              Beliefs are not justifiable in rational terms. Why do you feel the need to do so?

              1. 0
                Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Clearly any of us that don't agree with you are uneducated morons and unworthy to banter with your supreme intellect. earlier it was the believers who were being condescending and making assumptions on education and knowledge at least its turned around. I smell an alter ego

                1. Misha profile image75
                  Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Nah, leaving alter egos aside (I think I smell it too smile), you as the vast majority of believers seem to miss the point - scientific theory is not something people believe in, it is something that is verifiable. smile

                  In other words, you can only believe in god, but you don't need to believe in evolution - at least not if you are a rational person. smile

                  1. 0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Makes no sense

                  2. 0
                    Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Why I do see your point some things in science are verifiable but a theory is not that's why its a theory, given incidences tend to point to a certain conclusion but so far have not been proven as such it remains a theory.

                  3. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                    Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Misha -- Actually, the hallmark of a good scientific theory is not that it is verifiable, but that it is capable of being disproven.  Very good scientific theories are the ones that explain a great number of things elegantly and consistantly withstand being shown to have fatal flaws or are not replaced by more elegant theoories that explain more phenomena better.

                    This is a rough account of a dominant theory in philosophy of science by Karl Popper.

                    "Verifiability" wa a theory of the Vienna Circle -- and they proved their own theory did not rest on verifiable evidence; i.e. it was untrue on their own asserted grounds.

                  4. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
                    Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Misha you never work in experimental work. You would see one has to believe in result since till now nobody did the study.

                2. 0
                  sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  So because EG has studied evolution to a greater extent as well as religion to a greater extent, you insist that he must no know what he is saying because it doesn't agree with your experience or knowledge?

                  1. 0
                    Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    How do you know what I've studied or majored in or done...that's the point we're talking about making irrational presumptive conclusions and on faith but using the same line of reasoning to debunk other..that's why this whole repeating debate is insanity, everyone cries unfair and foul while doing the same thing...It is entertaining though

                3. atomswifey profile image68
                  atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I smell that alter ego as well scott smile Maybe Mr. Knowles yet again?

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I thought YOU were Mark Knowles.

                4. Evolution Guy profile image61
                  Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Broadly speaking, evolution is adaptation to change. Personally - I do not see this theory working with a goal in mind.

                  i.e. - humans were the ultimate destination and we were "created" through this process. Seems rather "inefficient."

                  so - either we came about accidentally -

                  or - we were the goal.

                  Neither of which allows for a supreme being. But - I am open to suggestions to the contrary.

                  And also open to your understanding of evolutionary biology theory.

  10. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I'm with Rich, Tex, Scott, and Joyce. There's just so much that humans don't know or understand. For example, I often have dreams about specific events that come true. How did I know this beforehand? How about the power of prayer? That's been proven in double-blind studies. Why does it work? I don't know if God is a bearded figure in a white robe or a space alien. I just know that a supreme being is the great creator.

    As I've said before, I don't know why we beat this poor old dead horse. Believers can't "prove" the existence of God, and antheists can't prove that He doesn't exist.

    Don't get me wrong - I'm all for debate, unless it gets nasty!

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You're right, double blind studies did prove the power of prayer but did you miss the second half of the study that showed that those who thougth they were being prayed for became much worse?

      The power of prayer is psychological. The psychology of those who believed that they were being prayed for felt as though they were so sick that they needed prayer that they actually caused there own selves to become worse.

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sandra. I know what you are talking about and I red the book. The problem here is that it is not psychological only since there is the faith involved. God is not respecter of persons but He is respecter of faith.

  11. atomswifey profile image68
    atomswifeyposted 7 years ago

    I believe God created everything and in everything He is. God is e=mc2!
    He is a part of all things. He designed it all perfectly and we being limited to our understandings yet intelligently designed as well are just now catching up to how He created it all. Using an intricate design and perfect balance to it all. It really is amazing no matter what you call it, evolution or not, God made it to do what it did and is doing.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for expressing your self in this forum without trying to proove it through scripture. I am serious!

      1. Flightkeeper profile image79
        Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol
        Good one rhamson!

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I am suspicious of your reaction.  Are you sniping me or are you being truthful?  You can't blame me for asking.  We don't see eye to eye on much.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image79
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Rhamson, I thought you were funny. There's no hidden agenda in it. And it was ok with me that we don't see eye to eye, I still enjoy discussions with you smile

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Okay all is good in rhamsonville again.  I too enjoy our conversations.

      2. atomswifey profile image68
        atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have expressed myself time and time again without using scripture but I do favor it as I believe the scripture is more trust worthy being Gods Word. smile

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I guess the honeymoon is over.  You couldn't help yourself could you.

          All I was hoping is that we could talk with an appreciation of what the belief is without the injection of written proof real or not.

    2. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So now you are saying that god is relative? hmmm?????

      1. atomswifey profile image68
        atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am saying God is in all and of all. He is more than relative. He is beyond our reason, our understanding. Yet He reveals Himself through all He created.

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Then why pretend or make as if you know and the bible has all the answers?  Why do you insist that some are of god and others are not if god is in all?  Why do you insist that no man is god but believe god to be in all things... excluding humans who do not believe in the bible of course, right?

      2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        God is the Creator of matter and time. But He is outside of them both.
        The theory of relativity apply only to "matter" "m".

  12. Bard of Ely profile image87
    Bard of Elyposted 7 years ago

    I would say "yes" too seeing as I believe I am rational and I believe every much in God.

  13. 0
    Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago

    @Misha..i will go check out his hubs. For the record I agree with alot of what all of you say, maybe that's the issue...I have no problem taking the best from every line of thinking and applying it to my own beliefs, as I recognize that I do not have all the answers and there are several paths to any outcome...I don not think humans are perfect I think we're just another species of animal that has adapted favorably to existing conditions to the extent that we can now shape conditions to suit us. In time though we will meet a condition we can not survive in and so another species will take the lead. I also believe in God though why, I can't give you a reason..I just do based on what I know, have seen, and more importantly don't know at the same time believing that all of nature is driving forward in the race to survive and grow. i will say before I go though that alot of what i see being passed around in modern RELIGION is outright arrogance and self worship on the part of men and maybe the real issue with alot of the anger I see from Non-believers is towards organized religion as a whole, and I would have to agree with you. Non-believers there a silly term, reminds me of a cult horror movie. We shouldn't use either term. I wish more people would spend as much effort believing in themselves as what they devote to believing or not in God.

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL Scott, how am I supposed to answer this? Your beliefs are your beliefs and are none of my business.

      I'll take a record, though smile

    2. broussardleslie profile image81
      broussardleslieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Aha! This is why you and I get along so well, Scott! I, too, believe that having an open-mind to others' input goes a long way towards personal growth. Well done wink

      1. 0
        Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Run Leslie there be monsters here....

        1. broussardleslie profile image81
          broussardleslieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I have NO intention of sticking around; just wanted to give YOU a kudos!

  14. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Im going with the short answer ( on OP ) smile

  15. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    Yeah I'll go with the short answer too.  It is rational for an individual to believe in God.

  16. rmcrayne profile image95
    rmcrayneposted 7 years ago

    Richard VanIngram, thank you for sharing your story.  I did find it interesting, but my patience level is different going into a forum post vs a hub.  Though I haven’t read all of the 100+ responses in this thread, I’m guessing that it has come up that your original post maybe should have been a hub.  But then it reaches a different audience, and many may not have seen it. 

    You stated:  Belief and unbelief BOTH take work if they are to truly be rational or reasonable. They BOTH take a knowledge of history and theology and philosophy -- and these are hard-won, not easy, not simple, and less simplistic matters.

    I don’t find my unbelief to take work, it just is.  My studies, including sociology and religion in college only fortified my adherence to logic and rational thought.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I respect your beliefs and the research and time you spent in the process but do you have any instances where you believed something would happen that had no rational explanation?  We all do and I guess in some convoluted way that could be applied in this case.  Maybe hope is the beginning but maybe belief is the resulting next step in the process.

      I can live in the possiblity of belief while I figure it out.  I don't try to convince or manipulate people to logically come to the same conclusion but I offer the question. Is there a possibility that God exists?  And if you cannot proove it can you live with I don't know until you do have proof for yourself?

  17. Flightkeeper profile image79
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    Oh Christ, please don't turn this into an alter ego thread.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Misha is also Sweetiepie

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, and the biggest secret of all - I am Ron Montgomery, too lol

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Nope, I'm the only true original here. wink

  18. Richard VanIngram profile image80
    Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago

    Wow.  Y'all had fun while I was running an errand.  It will take me a bit to read and think about some of these -- I'm not the fastest draw or quickest with an answer at all times.  Sometimes, but not all the time.

  19. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    The rational question should be how can a rational mind NOT believe in a beginning; of an intelligent nature.  As far as the bible goes the translation and interpretation thereof has left the truth at the staring line.  Uninterpret this and you will find truth.

  20. tantrum profile image59
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    'Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?'

    No ,he can't. Being rational is being logic. God is Man's creation, as are unicorns and fairies. Logic tells you these are fantasies. God is Man's fantasy, the Almighty,The loving father. An archetype. A symbolic explanation of this creation.
    Who created us? The God in the Bible ? Revengeful God and full of hatred,despising his own creation. Is that a rational way of thinking ? I don't think so. Believing in a God that sends all the 'unbelievers' to Hell, for example ?
    If you believe in God you have to be idealistic. If you idealize ,you don't  rationalize.
    Nothing wrong in being a believer, nothing wrong in being one that doesn't.

  21. My Friend Shiyloh profile image61
    My Friend Shiylohposted 7 years ago

    Love is logical, anything not done out of love is not.

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Are you kidding me?  Love is the most illogical and unreasonable emotion man has. lol  I mean this is the best of ways though.

      Think about it, love makes people crazy.  Can we talk about Unicorns now? big_smile

      1. My Friend Shiyloh profile image61
        My Friend Shiylohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Love is not an emotion and does not react to them, it responds to everything in love and nothing else.
        Love is a stance that cannot be shaken.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Love isn't an emotion? lol


          You are wrong again prophet.

          1. My Friend Shiyloh profile image61
            My Friend Shiylohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It's okay young man, you might see later on in life.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Or maybe I will find faith and live blind.

  22. Richard VanIngram profile image80
    Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago

    (The following is my initial argument for the existence of God.  I do not know that it proves beyond a shadow of all doubt God exists, but I think it is formidable as an argument.

    It is based on St. Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God, but goes one better and explains why the concept of God is a unique concept and shows something that no other concept does or can.

    I lifted this from another discussion, as I'd already typed it out there and, well, am too lazy to re-type it -- I have not seen it refuted yet.  Responded to, analyzed, and so forth, but not shown to be senseless and illogical.

    No, this does not "prove" the existence of a God of any religion, Christian or otherwise; it's a purely philosophical exercise -- but I think it does show the "probability" that it makes more sense to think a Being we would call Deity exists than not.  And if God is possible, then we would be within our rights to examine which religious versions of God, if any, do not violate what we can know by reason -- making those religions [or things within such religions] that can pass such a test at least largely reasonable -- things we could believe while remaining rational people.)

    My argument, with apologies to St. Anselm

    1.  God is not composed of many "parts": One wonders at the premise that God is complex or must be complex.  The traditional Scholastic interpretation of the subject held that God is simple -- a concept going back to the neo-Platonic idea that God is One.  What can be predicated of this reality -- mostly complex because of the presence of temporality (the dimension of time and change) -- cannot be said of God.  God is sui generis -- not just another being, but simply Being itself.

    That we conceive of God through multiple ideas -- Goodness, Beauty, Being, Holiness, Omnipotence, etc. -- is supposed to be because we experience God in time from our own ever-changing perspectives, not because God is actually many, many things or qualities.  God "appears" multifaceted to us because we can only grasp reality in multifaceted conceptual frameworks -- not because God is actually multifaceted.

    So, any argument that begins with saying, "God is complex, therefore must have had a creator," etc. (the classic vicious infinite regress critique), is already off on the wrong foot with a poor premise.

    2.  Some say, "Just because something exists conceptually doesn't mean that it exists in actuality."  This is a (or mainly THE) counter-argument to St. Anselm's Ontological Proof of the existence of God.  For those who do not know the argument, here it is:

    a) God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
    b) But an actually existing God is always greater than a potentially existing God or a God who might not be -- to deny God already involves affirming the concept of God.
    c) Therefore, God must exist.  It is impossible to conceive of God, even to deny Him, without also admitting than an actual God is greater than a non-existing one.

    I agree, just because "something exists conceptually doen't mean that it exists in actuality."  But there is ONE thing that does escape that criticism: actuality itself.  Actuality isn't just anything or some particular "thing."  Actuality is the fullness of Being, the activity of Being.

    It is impossible to think of Actuality, full and absolute Being with no admixture of becoming or the possibility of going out of existence, without also affirming Actuality really exists. 

    We experience, in our minds and in our senses, things that are in some way actual all of the time.  Now, subtract all of the individual things you can conceive and you are left, not with Absolute Nothingness (as that would be to lack any being at all, or even the possibility of being), but with Absolute Being -- not this and that thing coming into being and going out of it, but with Being itself.

    This Being is God.

    To say "God Is," in fact, is already a redundancy.  We may as well say "Existence Exists."  God Is Existence; Existence is God.  Beyond that, there is not much we can say of Him -- most of our language about God is closer to poetry than any literal grasping of Who He Is and what that means.  In fact, it is far easier to talk about what God isn't than what it means for God To Be.  This is an approach in theology called "negative theology," such as pioneered by Nicholas Cusanus.

    It may be countered, then, that our concept of God is "empty," just as much as our concept of Being (not beings) is abstract and "dark" -- we cannot attach any mental pictures to it or really compare it to anything we experience except in a relative way. 

    My answer is that this simply shows one of the limits of reason in the fields of theology and philosophy -- reason does have its limits, borderlines of existence beyond which it cannot pass.  We encounter these in physics, for example, when we realize the human mind can either locate the position or speed of a partical, but not both at the same time; or when we realize that scientific knowledge is inevitably probabalistic, not absolute.  Mathematical knowledge has its own conundrums as well (Goedel's Theorem) and so forth.

    In like manner, after reason "sees"  God Is (or that 'Is' really is), there's not a lot left for philosophy to say, rationally -- except for the task of saying what God is not.

    In short, God does not "possess" the quality of eternality.  God simply Is.  God IS eternity. Eternity is God. Being, eternity, and God are the same thing; God is not a subject with the predicates "being" and "eternality" (or any other quality) superadded to Him.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is the initial philosophical argument I posted around page 8.

      1. tantrum profile image59
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think you're not believing in God ,if what you state here are your beliefs. You're only putting the name of God  to the supposedly 'beginning of things'To an 'ideal'. And to believe in an ideal is no rational at all.

      2. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Meaningless rhetoric that does not in any way address the issue. You have not defined god in any way. Not quite sure what this has to do with your argument either.

        You have - of course - made several assumptions:

        1. You have assumed a god.
        2. You have assumed that any definition of god must encompass the points you mention here, and all you have really done is point out that the real poor premis that there is a god.



        Too many assumptions once again. You are assuming a god based on the fact that if you can imagine it, it exists.  And you are missing a key point as important to determine the rational or irrationality of a belief in a god. Your argument rest s on this point:

        "reason does have its limits"

        And this argument can really be reduced to:

        "I cannot rationally make an argument in favor of a god. Reason has it's limits. But - I believe, therefore I must go beyond reason and rely on something else."

        Not rational thought.

        1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
          Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for giving that the serious consideration it so richly deserved. 

          I am inclined to think, at this point, you're out in a deeper end of the pool than you've ever visited, and you don't want to look bad for the girls as you're floundering.

          1. Evolution Guy profile image61
            Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I have given it serious consideration. And lets face it - this is not exactly a new argument.

            Sorry the fact that I do not see any value to your argument and "cut to the quick" of it make you unhappy.

            I am not sure what the passive/aggressive "in deeper" comment is for though.

            Are you just looking for a fight?

  23. Jewels profile image81
    Jewelsposted 7 years ago

    There are allot of rational thinking human beings who already say YES to this question.  And I'll add myself to the mix.  Though forget the arms and legs bit unless you want to include me as being God.  I'll accept that too! lol Prove I'm not God. OK I'm out of this rationally irrational discussion.  These circular discussions make a girls head spin in frustration.

    I'm about to have my work translated into Spanish, so I'm having a gooood day.  Could say it was Gods work, but I did it, so that proves I'm God, rationally, doesn't it?  Does it really matter at the end of the day?

    Skips out of the forum to check stats.... lol

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Congratulations!

      Maybe you and God are on friendly terms?

  24. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Nah, yer no God Julie. lol

    Yer Goddess wink

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      We Goddess always make the same mistake... making ourselves equals and all. big_smile  She is God. smile

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Nah, the female for God is Goddess smile

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol, you missed the joke. smile

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I guess I did sad

  25. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I believe the answer is yes. I have friends that I believe are rational who believe in god, and I have friends who are irrational who do not, and visa versa.

    1. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      of course, a rational individual can believe in god. finding rational individuals on the forums may be questionable..

      our beliefs are personal. what one defines as god may be quite different from another.

  26. Quilligrapher profile image90
    Quilligrapherposted 7 years ago

    @Richard VanIngram: Congratulations. It appears you have inspired over 140 posts in less than an hour.  Remarkable!  I applaud your efforts to generate a serious and meaningful discussion but, at the same time, I believe it is not likely to happen.  Still, I enjoyed your initial post a great deal and I respect the methods you used to reach your personal conclusions. 

    That said, let me get out of the way.  The really big guns are surely going to be showing up soon.
    Q.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you.  I tried!

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If scientific approach is only a theory, then it is best to stick with God, until theory become reality. But it will not.  The faith then has to be build on substance we do not see. It cannot build on opinion (which is religion).
        When we see the faith materialize itself, the faith that moment cease to become faith. The Bible is incredible Word of God (Book).
        My definition of God is: God is awesome Creator of Universe, who created matter and time and He is my Lord. He is outside of matter and time. Those who do not see Him, then they never looked.
        God can reveal Himself to us. But we are not His gods to tell Him what to do. Here is lack of respect toward God.
        Bless you.

        1. atomswifey profile image68
          atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Amen! smile

  27. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Ya hit the nail on the head Earnest !

    Question would look good Can A Rational Believe In Anything- Yes they can do smile

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks EagleKiwi. I think most people would have close family who have different points of view about religion. In our family alone there are three different religions. smile

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Must be fun at Christmas! big_smile I never talk in person about what I "believe" unless it's with my bf because he doesn't really care he just likes to hear me talk.  He says I make him laugh. 

        All in good fun.  Why do people take it so gosh darn seriously though?

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
          Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Last Christmas was different but kinda cool Sandra
          My son who hates commercialism with a passion bought my Xmas gift in November and something I needed (and not wanted) I swear whatever ya teach your kids will come to haunt ya lol
          Other son is a great saver but tight with his money so he bought Xmas cards that were dated a year previous because they were like 50 for 50cents , then he twinked over the 7 to make it 2009.....ohhhh son...
          Other darling son lost his money at the casino so will be late again this year lol

          Do they know God , you betcha
          Do they agree with the Bible , nope
          We swap books and theories til Im yawning my head off,lol
          Do they love me ( and I do believe) lots

          Time is so short people , we gotta love an not judge ,this aint no dress rehearsal.

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Werd! smile  Your kids are funny... sorta like der momma. big_smile

    2. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's why I followed it up by asking, Should they?  Which is far tougher to answer.

  28. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Same here Earnest , well two , but equally passionate and one (my 22 yr old is so intense) lol and hes says I frustrate him ,ohhhhh yea right.
    But its love (whoever ya believe created it) holds like superglue wink at the end of the day.

  29. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Ummm...Sandra, I don't know which study you're referring to. My post was in reference the the 2009 study on Quantum entanglement and DNA and the study conducted at California Pacific Medical Center. The really amazing results, however, are the ones from Columbia University. They were "double blind." The people being prayed for didn't KNOW they were being prayed for.

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have a link.  I must be talking about two different studies.

  30. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Here's the one about quantum entanglement and DNA. Fascinating!

    http://alternativespirituality.suite101 … _of_prayer

  31. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Read the section here entitled "Being Prayed For." Another double-blind study where the people being prayed for didn't know they were being prayed for.

    http://www.iconmag.co.uk/page.php?n=458

  32. dentist83 profile image59
    dentist83posted 7 years ago

    Rational people can believe in God.  What is irrational is not the idea of God, but the idea that one religion has the truth and everyone else is wrong and will go to hell.  If God exist,  as I believe he does he is totally different from what religions portrays.  A good religion should not control you beliefs, but should encourage free thinking and thinking free.  Should be allied to science, humanities, and social science, not their enemies.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not advertizing or trying to make converts -- but I converted to just such a religion.  And the one I prefer and that speaks to me is not the only one like it, Christian or otherwise.

      Many religions and sects encourage the life of the mind and tolerance and do not present the idea of a merciless God.

      1. dentist83 profile image59
        dentist83posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Are you still an episcopalian?  If I have to choose a christian congregation, I'll probably choose them.  As a philosopher how do you feel there?  Comfortable?  Do you know about Bishop John Shelby Spong?  What do you think about him?  He is retire now.

        1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
          Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I am still an Episcopalian and feel very comfortable there.  The Anglican Church has had philosophers, writers, scientists from all along the spectrum and still does.

          I have read Bishop Spong and truly appreciate his writings.  I do not agree with some of the things he says, but agree with other things.  He is always interesting and provokative.  He is a first rate scholar and theologian, in any case.

          Our church is very, very inclusive -- we have people who believe all sorts of things theologically, and we are a church that has great conversations on everything.  In the end, we are united in our Book of Common Prayer and the liturgy -- we all agree on that and don't often allow theological debates to get in-between us and our unity of worship.

          Sometimes, it's largely a church of people who agree to disagree and not let those disagreements to come between us.  Which is refreshing for me.

          1. dentist83 profile image59
            dentist83posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That is something beautiful about that faith in my opinion.  When I move to New Jersey Im planning  to assist one.  I agree, it is refreshing.

            I like to watch this videos of John Shelby:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJICIGQl0JU

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL8LvaJ9Rc

  33. dentist83 profile image59
    dentist83posted 7 years ago

    <<<Certainly, one may follow the herd and believe because "they" say to do so.  But then again one may accept many scientific positions for the same reason, and many do -- they repeat, not because they fully understand why, but because the word "science" is magical for them and represents an alliance with something infallible and unquestionable.>>>

    Totally Agree.

  34. 0
    Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago

    Richard,
    I believe in your quest for the truth of God , that you know down in your inner mind, at the base of all things your intellect springs forth from that there is a God. I believe you have experienced his presence as I have and you know the truth of things.

  35. 0
    Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago

    Richard,
    You said in your original article that by the time you were 12 you realized you could not fulfill the demands set forth and no one else could either.We all know that no one ever will.I believe that is one of the reasons we have so many different faiths.People trying to create a faith that they can fit into and make their way to God.For me,that void that was left was filled by Christ.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for your kind words, Rick.

      Yes.  In the end, that void was filled with the Christ for me -- and, also for me, I meet the Christ in the traditions of the ancient Church.  Some do not require this -- I have known many people for whom organized religion, much less ritual and rites, was a stumbling block, for one reason or another.

      I can accept that.  My own temperament, though, requires some solemnity and order to calm me enough so that I can hear and experience the Christ mystically -- and so I can go into the world and try to see him in all the people I encounter on a daily basis.  Even in myself.

      I don't talk about my faith out loud very often -- I really didn't start this discussion with that in mind.  Not because I am ashamed of it, but because I am of the opinion that faith is best shared through actions, not words.

      But carving out the right to both have faith and be respected as a thinking person -- that unfortunately requires words.  I see a lot of general disrespect on these boards -- between believers **and** unbelievers, and it runs both ways.  There are no innocent "sides" here, just innocent individuals who don't participate in attacking one another and try to have conversations. 

      I offered my own conversation, misspellings, poor grammar and all, about why I think a person can be rational, individualistic, and still have religious faith -- and all three be compatible.  Contrary to what I see claimed and asserted in many other discussions on these boards.

      1. 0
        Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Richard for your comments.I respect your rights, opinons and beliefs as I would my own.Furthermore I apologize for having gotten slightly askew of the original question which may have caused you to discuss matters you cared not to. I hope to converse again.Best Wishes

  36. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    smile Having been around these forums for a while I assumed you were a religionist from the word go. I also assumed your agenda from the name of the post. smile

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      My "agenda" could also be gathered by just reading what I write.  I'm not writing in secret codes.

      It's not as if I'm keeping a big secret or participating in a diabolical conspiracy of some sort.  I pretty much say what I mean, in a fairly straightforward manner.  Sometimes bluntly, when it's appropriate. 

      Often I'm too wordy when tired, but them's the breaks.

      I am unsure what you mean by "religionist."  I have a religion, yes.  If you mean I'm here to convert people or "preach," no.  I have no gifts in that area. 

      If someone wants to know about my beliefs, I'll share.  If they don't, I generally won't to any great degree.

      But if you mean I'll defend my right to believe and show that a believing person can also be respected for having an intellectual life, I'll stand guilty on that charge, completely and fully.

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Somewhat at odds with starting a forum thread with:

  37. 0
    Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago

    It always seemed to me that the more intellectual a person was , the more open. A greater capacity to see and understand all the evidences presented.That`s why I find it hard to believe one would be an athiest. If only to see the order of nature.Do all things not present themselves as by design? Of course, on the other hand I always wondered why Supreme Court justices became more liberal as they aged.

    1. mohitmisra profile image60
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well understand the world is made this way, great minds like Hawkins has his doubts about god. smile

      1. 0
        Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Mohitmisra,Though Hawkins may have a great mind , I feel you have attained more by becoming aware of God.It`s his loss.

        1. mohitmisra profile image60
          mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I have attained god knowledge in a way the pinnacle of knowledge, I now know my source, the source of all and the basic fabric of this universe which science has yet to discover  at the same time I can never forget that I was an atheist before and I was intelligent even then smile

          Mohit means one who has gained knowledge of the spiirt or the enlightened one.

          I thought enlightenment and god was a myth.

          God has made it this way ,each has his time. Some are born with an awareness of god and some develop it over a period of time and some probably at the moment of death. smile

          The Vedas talk of something like 5,000 human species depending on their consciousness level or awareness level which does make a lot of sense to me. smile

          One can be intelligent is some area or field and not the other. smile

          In fact now  my life's mission is to share the god knowledge I have gained , some connect with what I am saying and some mock it, their time will come smile

          1. 0
            Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well said Mohit,And I hope the abbreviation is acceptable,if not my apology.Everyone has his time of awareness or they don`.t

            1. mohitmisra profile image60
              mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with you . smile

  38. Pr0metheus profile image60
    Pr0metheusposted 7 years ago
  39. atomswifey profile image68
    atomswifeyposted 7 years ago

    Of course rational people can and do believe in God.

    Some may disagree as they are prone to think that believers throw out the notion of being agreeable to reason. But this is not so. Believers are very considerate of reason and judgement. We do not look at the World the same as nonbelievers do, but we use good sound judgement and reason in belief in our God.

    One man chooses to look at the World, the universe and not see a creator while the other side does. To me its a matter of perception and reasoning. One being fully characterized by their faith is a reflection of someone who is fully interconnected with his or her reasoning to have that faith.
    The same can be said of the nonbeliever. Both are rational human beings. The two are not separated by rational, as in one being and the other not. They are only separated by the conclusions they have come up with and the lines drawn between them as a result of their individual belief system.

    God loves all equally. Both the unbeliever and believer share in rational and consciousness, intelligence and forethought and of course Gods Love for all. I would never say someone who does not believe in God is not being rational in that.
    Being rational is matter of thought and mind, whereas belief in God comes from both rational thought and too from the heart and soul. Feeling Him in our lives as we draw closer to Him etc. But too when we look at the cycle of life, all life and everything around us we reason there is a creator and He is God.

  40. tantrum profile image59
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    'Can A Rational Individual Believe In God?'

    No ,he can't. Being rational is being logic.  God is Man's fantasy, the Almighty,The loving father. An archetype. A symbolic explanation of this creation.
    Who created us? The God in the Bible ? Revengeful God and full of hatred,despising his own creation. Is that a rational way of thinking ? I don't think so. Believing in a God that sends all the 'unbelievers' to Hell, for example ?
    If you believe in God you have to be idealistic. If you idealize ,you don't  rationalize.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I heard you the first time you posted this, Tantrum.  You are addressing an interpretation of religion and God that, while real (yes, people do believe things like that), are also A MINORITY OPINION within the Christian faith.

      At the very least, this opinion does not apply to me.

      If you wish to talk, address me, not an imaginary "Christian" on someother board.

      1. tantrum profile image59
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So in what kind of God you believe? I thought you were talking about the god in the bible ,which is as I describe him.

        1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
          Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          One cannot read the Bible literally and outside the traditions, theology, and mystical interpretations -- outside the historical understanding -- of the culture that wrote it down and has lived with and through it.

          To stick to literalism leads to many extremly unfortunate misinterpretations of scripture (or any other writing, except legal documents).

          Go back and re-read my introductory "essay" to this discussion.  I very carefully laid out my approach to hermeneutics and distanced myself from fundamentalism -- even gave big hints that the traditional interpretations of scriptures are far from literalistic.

  41. Paradise7 profile image86
    Paradise7posted 7 years ago

    The beginning of this thread should be a hub, I'd like to bookmark it and keep it.  I really like your point of view and agree with it wholeheartedly.

    Belief in God is NOT irrational.  A person may take on faith what cannot be either proven or disproven, without being irrational.  One must see that all the evidence is not in yet, nor will ever be. 

    Accepted science changes every day.  What a scientist in 1909 believed was true is very different from what a scientist in 2009 believes is true, and what a scientist believes in 2009 is true may very well be different from what a scientist in 2109 believes is true:  if you accept a scientist as the epitomy of rationality, then you may think, based on the evidence of what all the theories that scientists accepted over the centuries which is now exploded and proved to be false, that there is more sense in acceptance of religion than acceptance of science.

    That doesn't mean science is valueless.  On the contrary, the body of knowledge grows and grows.  But I think a true scientist would agree:  very little is ultimately proven without a shadow of a doubt.  There may be new evidence in the future that isn't available to us now.

    So for what is not proven, if we have a sense of the numinous, a sense of the infinite large and infinitely small in the universe and a humbling sense of our own limits, belief in God is not irrational at all.

    1. 0
      Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well stated Paradise 7.I enjoyed your imput and found it refreshing.Of course, I`m just running along the sideline in this debate and am having a good time,Best wishes

    2. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you.

      I'm going to probably make it into a hub amd add a couple alongside it as explanations. I'll stick a bibliography in it, too.

  42. Paradise7 profile image86
    Paradise7posted 7 years ago

    You know, here we go again.  Back and forth, back and forth, a couple of people verbally bashing each other and chasing everyone else off the thread.  I'm sick of it.  I'm not going to visit these forums anymore.  All this personal BS which is way off the topic and contributes nothing to the discussion is a complete waste of time.  Goodbye and good luck to ya.  I'm glad I have better things to do.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry to disappoint -- but Evolution Guy has been aching to fight with me since I put up this thread on the discussion board, and I won't oblige.  Too bad we couldn't have had a discussion about what I offered as a conversation topic,not whether or not, by responding to people on my own thread, I am participating in "bashing" and "running people off."

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Odd - I was not looking for a fight. All I was looking for is a rational argument. I have now waded through these 11 pages and not been able to find it.

        How strange that a contrary position is "aching to fight."

        Fortunately - the discussion is there in black and white for all to see.

        http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/23725

  43. tantrum profile image59
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    @richard
    I read your OP and you said you were anglican, but you never described what kind of a god you believe in. And that's why I'm asking. and as I stated earlier, I think rational beings can't believe in God.So i'm curious as to in what God  you believe; that, if you're rational of course.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm being dead serious -- go back to about page 3,4,5, of this discussion -- I have an argument for the existence of God there; it's a first pass.  It's also a mile long, so you can't miss it.  This is NOT an argument that any religious view is correct, just that a Deity exists.

      It is a rational view of God.

      We can move along from there if you are serious about knowing something about what I believe.

      But the short answer there is, no, I don't believe God is throwing unbelievers into Hell.  I believe God is infinitely merciful and infinitely just.  I don't believe God likes a favored few and dislikes the rest of us -- if anything, I think he likes his problem children to an extraordinary degree while loving all.

      Sure, none of that is "tragically hip" enough for this day and time, but it works for me.

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have just been back through pages 3,4,5 once again and cannot find any rational arguments. I do find you repeating that a belief in a god is not irrational.

        Please post the text again.

      2. tantrum profile image59
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not interested in debating your beliefs.you're entitled to them,and it's o.k. with me. My opinion is that if you believe in something intangible, you're not rational. And that's pure logic.
        Believing in God, has to do with faith, not logic or reason.
        And that's my answer to your OP question.

        1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
          Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And my answer to that is fairly brief: thought, logic and its principles, and reason are not tangible.  Go out in the yard and find them  Bring me a quart of syllogisms or the square root of negative one.  Show me the perfect circle of Euclidean geometry.  Point to the principle of non-contradiction outside -- maybe it's in the sky somewhere?

          Sarcasm aside -- much of the human world, the world we experience because human, is neither tangible, nor is it illusory, nor is it entirely a cultural product.

          We live in a world of intangibles that are real.  They aren't even horribly mysterious -- they're so comon we forget they exist.

          If this is true, a belief in an "intangible God" is not irrational just because the being in question cannot be experienced with the senses.  Numbers and geometry can't, either, subatomic particles, theoretical particles in physics -- all as invisible as God -- but hardly "irrational."  So God is no more "irrational" for being intangible than the number "1."

          1. tantrum profile image59
            tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            R U serious ? So only things that can be felt with the senses are real? Abstracts are real, numbers are real.Physics as well. What's real in the concept of God ? Nothing. Being intangible is not the issue. feelings are intangible and are true. But we don't have to believe in them. They just are.  They're not god. God is another thing, athing or ideal,which rational minds cannot believe in.

            1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
              Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I R serious.



              Of course not.  That was my clearly stated point, which was a response to your statement:



              "Intangible" simply means one cannot experience the entity in question through the body: that is, with the senses.

              I take it, then, you believe one **can** believe in something intangible AND be rational?

              1. tantrum profile image59
                tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                this are my last posts

                R U serious ? So only things that can be felt with the senses are real? Abstracts are real, numbers are real.Physics as well. What's real in the concept of God ? Nothing. Being intangible is not the issue. feelings are intangible and are true. But we don't have to believe in them. They just are.  They're not god. God is another thing, athing or ideal,which rational minds cannot believe in.

                and


                I think you're not believing in God ,if what you state here(meaning your statement) are your beliefs. You're only putting the name of God  to the supposedly 'beginning of things'To an 'ideal'. And to believe in an ideal is no rational at all.

                Where do I say:
                'My opinion is that if you believe in something intangible, you're not rational'
                As you stated above ?
                I stated very clearly that intangible was not the issue.

                that phrase is from another post,before this one, and you took it out of context.

                And i'm not replying to you anymore, not only because you change  my posts meaning, but because for what i see you're not clear in your conceptions of the God you supposedly believe in. bye !

                1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
                  Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I copied your posts and replied to them as written at the time.

                  I took out the sentences I thought required a response -- you began by claiming belief in all intangibles was always illogical; you quickly changed your mind when I showed that statement was, itself, poorly thought out.  Which showed some intelligence on your part.

                  But you never moved beyond asserting, just asserting that because I believe in an intangible being, my beliefs are per se irrational.  Even though, to be rational, our thoughts involve all manner of abstractions and non-corporeal entities with great regularity.

                  I'll accept if you're saying that I have not proven to your satisfaction God exists.  I am incapable of doing this for you, no matter how I go about it.  I'll not accept the response "God, as a concept, makes no sense because God would be intangible," even though you're (finally) willing to accept many intangible things are wholly rational to count on.  The plain meaning underlying what you wrote is obvious.  I addressed the plain meaning.  The rest of it was confused and difficult to decipher.

                  Personally, I'd like to see less complaining and asserting, and have one of you prove God cannot exist and that believing in him is not simply a-rational or not-rational, but irrational and anti-rational.

                  Show me you have some sort of rational argument to defend your position.  I've shown you two, so far, to defend mine.

  44. rhamson profile image77
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    People have passionate attachments to their beliefs.  I took your post as your personal journey and explanation to try and put a handle on a question everyone asks at least once in their life.

    I enjoyed it and please don't feel that it was not appreciated.

  45. tantrum profile image59
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    @richard
    and you're not answering this

    I think you're not believing in God ,if what you state here(meaning your statement) are your beliefs. You're only putting the name of God  to the supposedly 'beginning of things'To an 'ideal'. And to believe in an ideal is no rational at all.


    I have to go. i'll come to you later.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Actually . . . you're not used to my line of argument.  I am not defining God at the outset as "the beginning of things."  I am not trying to prove God exists -- at the outset -- because other things are here.

      I'm defining God in terms of his necessity.  Not "necessity to make or explain everything else," but his ontological necessity -- his inability to not Be.

      I am not sure how you are using the word "ideal"  so I won't comment on it.  It is a loaded term in philosophy with a very specific meaning identifiable with Platonic thinkers.  It is the epitome, in some ways, of being a rationalist to accept the reality of "ideals" or "objective standards" of some sort.  But I am not sure if you mean "Platonic ideal," "idea," "illigitimately reified thought or abstraction," something else entirely, or whatever.

  46. 0
    Rick Marlowposted 7 years ago

    Richard,
    I hope you were able to catch my apology last night as I felt responsible for moving the post in the slant it took. I certainly did not mean to open the discussion up to you being ridiculed.Of course, I can tell you have thick skin and have encountered such before.No sweat I`m sure.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No problem -- you did me no harm. This was where it was headed no matter what I said, did . . . .  Ghandi could show up on these threads, as calm as you like, and I think there would be a section that would just **have** to verbally beat him down.

      Why?  Who knows.  And I am a looooooooong way from being a Ghandi.

      Yes, I have a thick skin when I have to -- and a sharp tongue.  I just hope it's not so thick and I'm not so defensive I don't miss out on anything of value that might pass on by in all this.

  47. Richard VanIngram profile image80
    Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago

    A follow-up to my argument for anyone who wishes to take it seriously:

    As some of those who are opposing me most vociferously seem incapable of actually making philosophical arguments, using the rules of philosophy, and analyzing philosophical arguments on their own terms, I will help out any skeptics here by showing where I think the weakest part in my own argument is, and then see whether this weakness can be overcome.



    1) the problem here is not with defining God as Necessary Being.

    One person who wished to "discusss" my claims simply refused to define God before we started talking, because he has probably been trained or read somewhere that traditional definitions of God contain what he thinks is their downfall -- God is defined as Being, "Is-ness."  It is easy to jump from that to accusing the person who asserts a traditional definition of "circular reasoning" or defining God by appealing to God. 

    It's easy to do that IF that's what has happened -- I don't think I've made that error.


    2. Here's the trick and the problem in my own argument:



    The problem here is: Does Existence exist **apart from THINGS that exist**?

    God is not supposed to be this or that thing -- or even all things all at once.  This is pantheism -- and, even though this would still be a proof of God's existence if it showed us a deity who might be pantheistic, it would be open to all the criticisms pantheism often is hit with -- God is finite, God is mutable, etc.

    It also seems to suggest that God cannot or does not exist apart from the things He keeps in existence; if we can't show reason for assuming Being could exist Absolutely and independently, we have no reason for assuming God has a Being apart form the beings we encounter here.  And a good argument could be made then that it is moot whether God exists at all -- He is just existence, this existence.  We know that's real in some sense.  So what?  If God is no more uncommon than dirt and dishrags, who cares?

    3.  Constitution and Being:  Things in this world have two sides to them -- their constitution, their structure, AND whether or not and to what degree and how they exist.

    I can imagine my friend, the unicorn again.  So long as human beings think about them, unicorns have a sort of being -- a fictional being.  Their being depends on the being of humans and our imaginations.  But for all that, notice a unicorn does have a minimal definition: It's horse-like; it has one horn, not two or more or none; it hangs with virgin maidens only.  Leave one of these out -- especially tha horn bit -- and we're no longer talking about unicorns, but imaginary unicorn hybrids of some sort. 

    On the other hand, though a unicorn must be horse-like, it does not follow that it must be majestic - maybe my unicorn looks like My Little Pony or kind of like Eeyore.  Maybe my unicorn also has wings and is Pegasus-like.  Maybe it has pink spots.  And so on.

    Notice the one thing never included in the definition of the unicorn: It MUST exist or that it has independent being.

    You'd say, maybe, "Of course not, dunce.  Unicorns don't really exist."

    I'd say, the reason why unicorns don't include their being in their definition (their constitution or structure) is -- nothing here does.

    A definition or constitution or "nature," if we must use the term, is a definite "way of being."  It marks out this WAY of being from that way -- to be limited is to be something very specific.  And the more thing-like, the more ridgid the definition of an entity, the less freedom it has, the more automatic its unfolding through time.

    So -- things here in this world have a definition or constitution -- a specific "way" to be -- and they have existence, in a relative sense.  I say "releative sense" because it is not the nature or constitution of anything here "to exist."  It is easy to rationally imagine anything and anyone being like our unicorn -- just a figment of our imaginations.  Nothing in the definitive constitution of anyone or thing **includes** that it MUST exist.  We just don't find it when we examine the world, either in its many parts or its whole.

    This and that thing around us does not "have to be."  I don't have to be.  I could go out of being at any moment -- so could everything around me.  And there is no reason why any of it is here to begin with, if we just examine the constitution of each thing.  To make matters worse, if we examine the being of everything together at once -- the universe -- we find no necessity in that, either.  It isn't part of the definition or nature of the universe that it "had to be."  Physics itself rests on the principles of indeterminancy and probability -- the universe is probabilistic; nothing about it is necessary, even down to whether or not it has to be here at all or stay in being from moment to moment.

    Notice how this discussion is not about how complex the universe is or how complex things are -- it rests on whether or not anything and everthing can explain why it is here and why it remains here from moment to moment based solely on what it is to be that particular kind of thing or way o being.

    However -- what about this "being of things"?  Existence?  If the definition or constitution of things does not include Being or Existing, if we took away all the existing things, would Being remain?

    Being is not a noun, should not be thought of as a static or particular way of being, but is a verb, a pure activity, an action.  The different ways of being (such as being a human or a unicorn or a rock or a universe) express different degrees and modes of participation in this activity, different "styles" of participation, some maybe more limited than others.

    But what about Being without any particular styles or ways of being -- Being without particularity -- a Pure Act of Being?

    Yes, this is difficult to grasp and is extremely abstract, but that need not mean the notion is meaningless.

    a) Is there anything self-contradictory in the concept of Being-without-individual-beings?  I'll give this a short: I don't think so.  If one can see where this would be a self-contradiction, please show me.

    b) You may note I have not proven that the universe is finite and Being is not --- perhaps both are eternal, locked together.  All I need is for it to be recognized that, in principle, Pure Being or Existence is a higher and fuller activity than this or that limited way of being -- but it may not exist without from the universe or multiverse of things.  Even if it did not, though, if this highest form of Being -- Being itself -- simply exists, if God is the highest form of Being, God exists.

    c) There is something self-contradictory about the idea things, which lack being as part of what they are in themselves, could exist *without* a full Act of Being to keep them in existence.  This includes what it is to be a universe -- what is the necessity in this particular universe being THIS universe we experience?  If ONE thing about this universe could be different, if ONE thing even had the possibility of being other than it is, this would be a different universe or a universe capable of being different than it is -- thus, it would not necessarily exist, it would have no necessity, it could not explain itself. 

    Which it can't.  Because there is no reason to assume it could not be otherwise than it is and many scientific reasons to assume it can be otherwise, from moment to moment.

    Being, on the other hand, can explain itself.  It simply IS and never changes, has no parts and IS all possible qualities (things take on certain qualities inasmuch as they have being and are real -- this comes from their share of being, not from their constitution or definition).  If Existence did not exist as something distinct fromthis and that being, mutable beings would be creating Being, meaning their definitions each contain necessity . . . which makes no sense to assert as there is all evidence against that and none for it.

  48. tantrum profile image59
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    @richard
    this is were you took that phrase from:

    'I'm not interested in debating your beliefs.you're entitled to them,and it's o.k. with me. My opinion is that if you believe in something intangible, you're not rational. And that's pure logic.
    Believing in God, has to do with faith, not logic or reason.
    And that's my answer to your OP question.'

    And as I stated later intangible are things that are, you don't have to believe in them.they're just there, you feel them, you perceive them. In a god ,you have to believe. That's why I say that intangible is not the issue.

    good night!

  49. tantrum profile image59
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    @ruchard
    'If you believe in God you have to be idealistic. If you idealize ,you don't  rationalize.'
    And
    'Being intangible is not the issue. feelings are intangible and are true. But we don't have to believe in them. They just are.  They're not god. God is another thing, a thing or ideal,which rational minds cannot believe in.'
    And
    'You're only putting the name of God  to the supposedly 'beginning of things'.To an 'ideal'. And to believe in an ideal is no rational at all. '

    Are my rational arguments. What can be more rational than that ?

    And about this. you wrote:

    'I took out the sentences I thought required a response -- you began by claiming belief in all intangibles was always illogical; you quickly changed your mind when I showed that statement was, itself, poorly thought out.  Which showed some intelligence on your part. '

    I didn't change my mind 'quickly ' because you pointed out. I changed because I realized I was wrong in the words i chose, English not being my language.
    You're very offensive saying that 'the statement was poorly thought out' and  'it showed some intelligence on my part'.
    More so if someone reads all you have written, which are a bunch of inconsistencies.
    And which shows no intelligence on your part.
    I don't debate with rude people, as I think is useless and a waste of time. More so, if they don't have a valid argument.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am rude, offensive, my arguments are inconsistant, and I have no intelligence.

      I was confused on these issues.  Thank you for enlightening me.  Thank you for showing me a better, less rude, inoffensive, consistant and intelligent way to make arguments as to why God cannot exist, why my arguments make no sense, and why my position is irrational.

      It is all much clearer for me now.

  50. lbtrader profile image60
    lbtraderposted 7 years ago

    OP writes...

    The belief one must reinvent the wheel in one's own life in order to have an authentic belief and not be "part of the herd" is certainly egoistic -- but it isn't individualistic.  Tradition supports the individual -- the individual character is born,not out of a wholesale rejection of the past because "I did not create it," but out of receiving what the past hands us, examining it, creatively adding to, correcting where we can, and refining our inheritence in some small way, and then handing on what we have received to the community of people called humanity.

    _________________________

    I see the philosopher in you...

    This excerpt from your opening book...lol...makes me think of "free will" and it's part in being humans with individual personalities. The Borg, the Goa'uld, you'd think the writers of Star Trek, Stargate, and other such fictional, irrational crap were all geniuses until you start looking into ancient history and finding that basically they are just pulling old and existing characters out of the closet of the box titled "the show must go on" and rehashing them into modern versions.

    Being a big 2012 buff I come across alot of what most people believe to be bunk without looking past their nose for potential truths. I was recently looking at a news article about the Apophis asteroid which is listed on the NEO JPL NASA too close to earth for comfort list and started to research the word Apophis.....wow...the evil serpent of the darkness as a past that goes right back to the Egyptian sun god Ra and the cult of Ra who bow to him and look to him to protect them from the Apepi, aka Apophis....

    Irrational is not a concept of today.

    Many religious sects seem to play the role of the Goa'uld and the Borg, but then again so do many governments. How do we keep a free will when so many parasitic so called rational thinkers are looking for a host?

    NEO and the matrix is fantasy and maybe art immitating life, Apophis and NASA and the sentry NEO is real and could certainly be life immitating art when one considers that the movie producers and the real and highly educated scientists are digging into the same toy box for names to their creation.

    We are not reinventing the wheel. We are just repeating the cycle. That's 2012...and way beyond.

    Cayce was a Christian and Wilcock who believes himself to be Cayce reincarnated is a Christian but I doubt that either one of them would have an invitation to become the next Pope unless they totally altered their Free Will.

    Anyways I like the cut of your gest so I'm a fan.

    1. Richard VanIngram profile image80
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you as well!  I enjoyed this post -- gave me a lot to think on.  Often, I think on the topic of synchronicity -- how many things meaningfully echo one another.

      These are strange times indeed, tmes that will probably just get stranger.

 
working