Is Belief in God a Logical Extension of Reality?

[Mohaamad]

Believing in a God and believing in medusa are totally different matters.

God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality. Just like hypothesizing that the there were other lands to be discovered; thus the discovery of America and other continents. The question is whether we humans, as a function of time, have more to discover. Of course, God is an ultimate hypothesis of reality rather than a discreet hypothesis. It is kind of like hypothesizing the existence of aliens; from the existence of other planets. Except that the existence of God can only be "proved" through an afterlife; all others can be "proved" in this life. Nothing can be proved in this life, only established by our free will.

Being logical can have several connotations. You can be absolutely logical; if you consider yourself a mathmatician and only a mathmatician you can base matters on whether they can be absolutely proved through mathmatical reasoning; of course this would be only an "inherent" proof (it is intrinsically reasonable; intrinsically it seems to provide an absolute proof). Of course the mathmatician would be wrong because he is ultimately human being and not a mathmatician. However, even a "mathmatically minded human being" will have to consider the fact that we are beings of facultative logic. It is more "irrational" to persist in trying to prove that God exist. Irrational meaning a non-rational, endless, stubborn and personal pursuit. We can only make a rational hypothesis on this matter of whether God exist or not. Of course it would be better to consider several facets of reality before one decides. Atheism is purely a personal...belief. A methodological, facultative philosophy. And thus it is an emotionally based philosophy. All beliefs are personal; thus the reason for us discussing it here, we believe as a means to an end. I apologize if my english was difficult to understand.

 

[FZ+]

Believing in a God and believing in medusa are totally different matters.

We shall see... Actually, flaw there. Medusa was part of Greco-Roman mythology. Myths form a large part of their religion. Hence in this particular case the belief in that God (or Gods) neccessitates the belief in Medusa.

God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality.

Reasonable people differ in what is reasonable. The fact remains that we don't actually know was exists in reality. A matter of existence is that we each receive a limited view of the world, from which we have no right to regard as superior to everyone else. While you say that God exist as a logical extrapolation, the existence of different scenarios means that God is not required. In the same way, a believer in mystical beings may have seen a different view from you, and hence made a logical extrapolation of what he feels is reasonable. The overwhelming weight of people disagreeing suggests on balance that he is misguided, but we can't make that judgement absolute. In this way, the only difference, IMHO, between religion and whatever is that more people believe in God.

Except that the existence of God can only be "proved" through an afterlife; all others can be "proved" in this life. Nothing can be proved in this life, only established by our free will.

Can it? Let me be deeply pedantic. What if the God you see in the afterlife is merely an illusion - that on death, you merely dream of what does not really exist. Just as we are prone to illusion today, we may be once we die. Santa Claus can be proven too if he visits you after you die. That makes no difference.

A methodological, facultative philosophy. And thus it is an emotionally based philosophy.

Wha..? How do you say that a methodological and facultative philosophy is thus an emotionally based philosophy? Hmm...

My definitions are:
Atheism: lack of belief in God.
Anti-theism: belief in the lack of God.
Agnosticism: belief in the lack of evidence, or personal lack of exposure to evidence for or against God.

While antitheism (and maybe absolute agnosticism) are belief systems, I don't think atheism is. Then again, my definitions have been fuzzy in the past, so check up on them...

The whole point behind the comparision to Santa etc is not to denegrate religion by parody (though sometimes that is done), but to demonstrate the futility of making a choice in terms of specific religions. How can you justify that you believe in x, while you reject y complete out of hand, when the believers of y do the same to x?

 

[R0man]

Believing in God is a highly personal and subjective matter, and it is not something that can be proven or disproven through objective means. It ultimately comes down to an individual's personal beliefs and experiences. While some may see belief in God as a rational extension of what exists in reality, others may see it as an irrational pursuit. It is important to respect and understand that everyone has their own beliefs and reasoning behind them. It is not fair to dismiss someone's belief in God as irrational simply because it may not align with our own beliefs or understanding of the world.