<p>@collegehopefull: nope, sorry 
got the nationality right though</p>
<p>@theslowclap:</p>
<p>Actually, you sound very ignorant. Youâre 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 donât want people like the OP to attend Cornell). </p>
<p>Youâre right, I do know the definition of rational, but it sounds like you donât. It also sounds like you donât know the definition of logical. So let me define these words for you:</p>
<p>raâ tionâ al
- agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
- having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.</p>
<p>logâ iâ cal
- according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
- reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.</p>
<p>And since this definition uses the word âlogicâ in its definition, I will also define logic for you:</p>
<p>logâ ic
- the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.</p>
<p>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 Godâs 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 âable to be perceived by the sensesâ, 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.</p>
<p>Then you told me to google âGod philosophyâ, so I did. I also read the first couple results. The first one was particularly hilarious. It was a page titled âPhilosophy and the Proof of Godâs Existenceâ, and its first point was âthe argument from Designâ. 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, itâs likely that there are other planets out there that have advanced, complex life-forms. His second argument was âThe ontological argumentâ which is basically that since God is perfect he must exist, because if he didnât exist, he wouldnât be perfect. There are so many problems with this argument I donât even know where to begin. First of all, our concept of âperfectionâ is completely man-made, not to mention completely subjective. Whoâs to say that our idea of âperfectâ is the same as the universes idea of âperfectâ. 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 â â â â â â â â article after that argument. </p>
<p>Oh and you said âpoint provenâ but you never stated your point⊠or proved it for that matter.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 didnât 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.</p>
<p>Hey, Iâm 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.</p>
<p>JollyStNick took it way too far. Very ignorant of him. This is the problem with people today. They are NEVER open to new ideas and are very CLOSED minded. They are just like Oprah, they THINK they are always RIGHT. But Iâm not going to rebuttal his comment because there is no point is arguing with a close-minded ignorant person. I suggest that this thread either dies or post some useful comment to the OP.</p>
<p>However, JollyStNick demonstrates a point in which there are people who will challenge our religious belief. It can either break you or make you stronger as a religious person. Since Cornell is your dream school, I think you should apply, and I believe that your love for God will grow even stronger if you get in. There are so many Christian Fellowships at Cornell and there will always be support if you need it. Let us know what you plan to do OP.</p>
<p>Start another thread in the cafe, JollyStNick. Proselytizing your faith in only science is very much off topic.</p>
<p>@dragonneedspank:
You could not be more wrong. Itâs not that I am close minded, it is that I am close minded to things that donât make any sense. Thatâs like calling me close minded for not believing in Santa Clause, while a large part of the population does (albeit the younger part).</p>
<p>You are also wrong that I think that I am always right. I actually frequently profess that I know nothing, which I honestly believe to be the truth; none of us knows anything.</p>
<p>And you say that you arenât going to argue with me because I am âa close-minded ignorant personâ, but the real reason is because you have no argument against me. You are far worse than me (along with theslowclap) because instead of trying to come up with intelligent arguments, you use ad hominem arguments to attack my personal character rather than my intelligible arguments.</p>
<p>I think itâs just as likely that we are the experiment of super advanced humans as that there is a God, but thatâs not to say I think either is very likely. You should also notice that I never attacked religion, only the concept of God. This is because I think there are many lessons we can learn from religion, but the concept of God is particularly â â â â â â â â .</p>
<p>Do you have any evidence for the argument that God does not exist? Neither side has evidence, and so you canât use evidence as the basis of your argument. If you wanted to, then I could just as easily rewrite your entire argument with the words âGod must not exist.â </p>
<p>The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.</p>
<p>How long ago was it that the concept of an atom, because invisible to the naked eye, was thought to be irrational?</p>
<p>Now quit the bickering, and if you want to continue this asinine argument, do it on your own thread.</p>
<p>even though iâm an atheist myself, i hate how some atheists try and prove that they are so much more rational and intelligent than religious people.</p>
<p>I tend towards agnosticism or deism myself, but I must point out that to be an atheist requires just as much faith as one who is religious. Both place their trust in something they do not know.</p>
<p>And unfortunately, both sides may exhibit much hate and bigotry.</p>
<p>Wow JollyStNick, TL;DR.</p>
<p>I knew this would turn into a flame warâŠ</p>
<p>Using the scientific method, disprove the existance of god. You can not, there is simply no evidence the disproves the existance of god. Thats why religion is not based on scientific inquiry. In fact, I think that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle nearly proves the existance of god. God exists and does not exist simultaneously until he is observed and collapses back into the state that he is observed in (existance or non existance).</p>
<p>So, if it is irrational to believe in God, and it is irrational to not believe in God. What IS it rational to believe in?</p>
<p>It is rational to admit that we donât yet really know what we donât yet know, while we donât yet really know. The quest to know â that process â is also rational; as well as being fascinating, and periodically rewarding.</p>
<p>^ I agree.</p>
<p>I would say that it is rational to have verifiable beliefs.</p>
<p>Teaching couldnât take place if you didnât believe something before it was demonstrated to be true - but thereâs the important part: In a frame of thinking, an assertion must be demonstrated to be true before you completely accept it</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This can also be described as making inferences, that is, making statements/predictions about what you can not detect, on the basis of what you can â Neptune was predicted before later astronomers were able to directly observe it. More broadly this can also be called theory, and it is a key aspect of the scientific method; but observation/recording comes first, and is the basis of subsequent hypotheses made in the scientific community.</p>
<p>but to claim that god does or does not exist with definity is ridiculous. There is no evidence to assert either claim.</p>
<p>Too many people forget, when the question of the existence or nonexistence of God is put forth, that if you take ten people off the street and ask them to define âGod,â that you will likely get ten different ideas. Some folks view God as the Cosmic underpinnings of the Universe. Many atheists and agnostics could to some extent accept this minority latter view â as Einstein did. However, the more antiquated views are not so easy for scientists to accept. The church imprisoned Galileo for the last years of his life in the 17th century for simply describing the Solar System properly. This is the kind of thing that causes many in the scientific community pause, when it comes to certain old fashioned beliefs of dogmatic âold schoolâ religious advocates.</p>
<p>Well, there ya go, OP. </p>
<p>Itâs all woefully off topic, but at least now you know what youâre in for from a place like Cornell.</p>
<p>Choose wisely.</p>
<p>But as I indicated, there is definitely a very supportive community of Christians at Cornell!</p>
<p>In fact, itâs hard to find an interest at Cornell that isnât supported.</p>
<p>^baby strangling? heroin use?</p>
<p>No to the first one.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I know a few that dabble in the second.
I donât think hard drug use is unique to Cornell though.</p>