Cached: Display Article: To believe in a Creator is perfectly rational

1) O: Proof of God cannot lie in just observing our surroundings. The watch in the desert looks designed in relation to its surroundings, what do we look at in relation to the universe to suggest it is designed? If a universe, which is supposedly limited, can not sustain itself alone why is it easier to believe in a higher power such as God which is unlimited to not only sustain a universe but to have no beginning or end. If it is easy to accept a God with no beginning why not the universe? (26/7/2009 at 21:43)

2) Think!: So [you think] the universe is infinite and has no beginning and no end?? Also, [do you think that] there had been universes before us and ahead of us, and have existed because of the 'big bangs' and 'big crunches'?

However, this argument is very irrational and clearly has not been understood properly. For example, I ordered a pizza to be delivered from Domino's Pizza. But, Domino's Pizza has informed me that they have an infinte number of home deliveries to make before they could deliver mine. In other words, they had to deliver a forever number of deliveries, before they could deliver mine. I could wait an eternity and never get mine. Well I would be, wouldn't I? But, say I phone Pizza Hut and they only had say 30 deliveries before me. I'll will get mine delivered definitely after the 30th delivery. Similarly, say we've had an infinite number of universes existing before our univerese, would our universe ever exist. On the other hand, say we've had 50 universes before us, we'll definitely come into existence and be the 51st univerese. So there has to be a beginning, and for that beginning to be there, their had to be a creator - an infinite or unlimited being. As only the infinte can create, the finite can make.

(27/7/2009 at 5:46)

3) Iain Barrie: The question of whether God or the Universe is infinite is circular and misses the point. Saying that the Universe is limited and 'believing' that God is not merely returns to the notion of faith. You believe God exists. I do not. I see no need for any higher being's influence in the creation of its random splendour. It is merely natural events over billions of years creating a Universe of incredible complexity. Inducing God only postulates on 'who' might have done it then I see no need for a Creator. Just because we do not understand and can only theorise about what happened before the 'big-bang', does not mean we have to make-up a protagonist. In fact I would say that is the easy way to answer the question rather than composed and rational enquiry based on evidence rather than the words of one who believes they spoke to God. I'm sure he did believe he spoke to God. Good for him. However I need more tangible evidence to explain the intricacies of the Universe than any one man's testimony. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until I get such evidence I will continue to believe that our existence is no more than wonderful chance and that other life probably exists somewhere. There, they don't have our representations of higher beings, they may have others, may have not. But they will still be subject to the natural laws of the universe and no doubt be in awe at its complexity and its mysteriousness, wherein, can be found the limits of human knowledge without requiring a third party to attempt explanation of them. (1/9/2009 at 14:47)

4) ian:

The very fact that our minds are limited and that there are natural laws of the universe begs the question 'what is limiting it?' and 'who is the lawgiver?'

It is not rational, rather it is just avoiding the question, to not ask what that limiting entity is. Our rational minds know that all limited things have something else imposing that limit upon them. So, to AVOID the circular argument, there must be an unlimited entity imposing limits on all things. Without this rational process we would never even enquire about the origins of the universe, so there would be no big bang theory even. Yet, we do enquire and we do not put our minds on the shelf in that enquiry.

If we are to stop asking about the causes of events, then we will no longer hunt for a murderer when we see a knife stuck in a body. We will not want to find a burgaler if our house is broken into and the TV is gone. We will instead console ourselves that another one of those random events happened, without a cause. We may even start to imagine that we can fly, as the natural laws are not necessarily fixed for us, so we may jump off a tall building. Clearly we do none of the above, because we are rational. So it is irrational to not follow the same ration that we live our lives by when it comes to answering questions about where we came from and where we are headed.

It is not due to faith that we say that Allah is unlimited, it is due to rational necessity. We only have our minds to understand our reality, so we are bound by its constraints. It so happens that Allah created our minds with the ability to recognise His existence, but not to understand His being.

I suspect that it has more to do with not wanting to believe in a creator, as we don't like the idea of accepting any restrictions on our free will. To deny the truth of something because I don't like it is surely irrational.

(2/9/2009 at 3:30)