Is our constant debate and questioning of God a lesson in reasoning?

[Scott Sieger]

I am aware that the following contention may draw some fire but in doing so just helps me prove my point.

I have over the years seen countless arguments about the existence and non-existence of that which we refer to as God. I think I can be correct in saying I am not alone in this observation.

I sat back the other day and asked teh question: What is the lesson in all this debate and conflict betweeen those that believe and those that don't?

and funnily enough the answer is quite obvious to me any way.

The issue of God is a lesson in reasoning.

I have found over the years that the ability to hold loosely to an idea and allow counter ideas to flow, the pro's and con's, the right and the wrong and yet maintain a stance of neutrality or inconclusivity to be the hallmark of reasoning and rationality.

So I ask what is the issue of God's inconclusivity a lesson in? And i find the answer that iot is a lesson in being able to rationalise and reason without coming to an immediate conclusion, an ability to suspend judgement until further information affords a stronger position.

The question of God is an excersise in good reasoning. to niether believe of disbelieve in an idea or proposition, not just that which is God but in all other aspects of a life of thinking and experience until the idea or proposition is strong enough to be called a belief or upon the event of such strength that it becomes knowledge.

I was wondering if others agree with this assessment of the need for inconclusivity when making judgements?

To me this ability is probably more important than to actually reach a conclusion. A conclusion being by far a much easier task than to suspend judgenent.

So every time the question of God is argued are we just attempting to learn to reason in a way that allows inconclusivity?

 

[yesicanread]

If you argue for a incomplete formula or incomplete thought. Why ? You don't do that for complete thoughts like exercise, so why argue for this behavior at odd times ?

It's much easier to treat life like a complete thought, and so look for a way to make complete thoughts, than to be sporadic by choosing this logic, and then acting contrary to it by wanting incomplete thoughts.
This is why Christians despise sin, and love the law.

I hope I made sense. Please contradict this idea with your own. This kind of thread is fun.

 

[wuliheron]

I am aware that the following contention may draw some fire but in doing so just helps me prove my point.

I have over the years seen countless arguments about the existence and non-existence of that which we refer to as God. I think I can be correct in saying I am not alone in this observation.

I sat back the other day and asked teh question: What is the lesson in all this debate and conflict betweeen those that believe and those that don't?

and funnily enough the answer is quite obvious to me any way.

The issue of God is a lesson in reasoning.

It is a lesson in humility and bad habits. Endless contentious debate is not a reasonable pursuit for anyone.

 

[Scott Sieger]

well...I guess if every one was prepared to admit that the issue is inconclusive and can not be resolved we have then learned the lesson of inconclusivity. And maybe the debate will be more productive.
(sorry if that sounds a bit glib)

Like for example:

How can we achieve a conclusive position on this issue? Is it currently possible? If not then we simply have to wait until it is possible.

If you argue for a incomplete formula or incomplete thought. Why ? You don't do that for complete thoughts like exercise, so why argue for this behavior at odd times ?

I think that holding a belief as a hypothesis or theory as inconclusive is by far a much more productive process of thought and reason than to hold conclusions prematurely.