JollyStNick

@theslowclap:

Actually, you sound very ignorant. You're right, I am obviously not here to have a constructive debate on the existence of a higher being because there is no debate to be had. In order to have a debate you need to have (at least) two opposing sides that have evidence to back up their claims. And while there are clearly two opposing sides on the religious issue, one of them has absolutely no evidence. (And for the record, I did help the OP make a decision because I showed him/her that there are people, like me, at Cornell who obviously don't want people like the OP to attend Cornell).

You're right, I do know the definition of rational, but it sounds like you don't. It also sounds like you don't know the definition of logical. So let me define these words for you:

ra⋅tion⋅al
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.

log⋅i⋅cal
1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.

And since this definition uses the word "logic" in its definition, I will also define logic for you:

log⋅ic
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

Ok, so lets walk through this. Something that is rational must be agreeable to reason and sensible. The concept of God is not agreeable to reason because in order to be agreeable to reason there must be evidence of God's existence because reason arrives at conclusions based on the collection and analysis of information. And the concept of God is not sensible because sensible literally means "able to be perceived by the senses", and seeing as there is no way to sense God (I am basing this on the belief that God is everywhere, and since I can not sense him, no one else can), God is not sensible. Since the concept of God is neither agreeable to reason or sensible, it is most certainly not rational.

Then you told me to google "God philosophy", so I did. I also read the first couple results. The first one was particularly hilarious. It was a page titled "Philosophy and the Proof of God's Existence", and its first point was "the argument from Design". It basically said that God must exist because there is no way that the complexity of human beings could occur by chance, or in other words humans are so complex that there must be an intelligent creator. This is a very naive argument. There are trillions upon trillions of planets in the Universe, so chances are that complex life would come about on at least one of these almost infinite number of planets. In fact, it's likely that there are other planets out there that have advanced, complex life-forms. His second argument was "The ontological argument" which is basically that since God is perfect he must exist, because if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect. There are so many problems with this argument I don't even know where to begin. First of all, our concept of "perfection" is completely man-made, not to mention completely subjective. Who's to say that our idea of "perfect" is the same as the universes idea of "perfect". Secondly, in order for this argument to make any sense, we must assume that God exists and that God is perfect, but why would we assume this if this is exactly what they are trying to prove. I stopped reading that retarded article after that argument.

Oh and you said "point proven" but you never stated your point... or proved it for that matter.

This brings us back to your point that philosophers believed in God, and they were smart and had logical arguments, therefore God must exist. First of all, the fact that other people believe in God does not prove that God exists, it just proves that more idiots have been deluded by religion. And their arguments cannot be logical because, as I defined above, something is only logical if it arrives at conclusions by analyzing evidence, and, as I have said before, there is no evidence, therefore there is no logic.

And I would counter your statement by saying that it is VERY irrational for me to believe that Bob exists. I never said that I could see Bob, I also explicitly mentioned that Bob was mute, so I never heard Bob. I also clearly didn't taste, smell, or feel Bob, so (going back to our definition of rational (aka sensible)) since I cannot sense Bob, it would be highly irrational for me to think that he exists.

Hey, I'm going to stop here because I pretty much raped your terrible, fallacy-filled argument. And sadly I think that you are right that this discussion will go on for millennia because there will always be gullible, weak idiots who need to rely on religion to get through their lives.