Belief in God is rational

I will be taking the point of view that belief in god isn’t rational, and that to have faith is actually suspension of logic. Let me begin by pointing out the fundamental flaw in my opponents’ argument. “Something must be the thing from which everything else came from. ” The problem, logically, with this argument is that you can’t explain what created the creator. You can’t have a double standard. Your argument hinges on this kind of ladder: a universe requires a big bang, and a big bang requires a creator. Well then what is the next logical step in your theory? We can’t stop at creator. What was the big bang for the creator? Your defence of this point was hardly adequate; mostly mathematical babble. The model for the creation of the universe exists perfectly fine without the addition of a creator. I apologize for any mistakes I make, as I am a bit of an obsessed amateur in this field, but I’ll give it a shot. From what I understand, you run into some interesting roadblocks when you apply Einsteinian physics to the period before the singularity that supposedly birthed to universe via the big bang. Quantum mechanics and E. relativity don’t comingle in this realm. This was incredibly troubling. When math doesn’t work physicists get freaked out. As a livescience article said (more eloquently then I could): “Das and his colleagues wanted a way to resolve at least some of these problems. To do so, they looked at an older way of visualizing quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics. In it, a hidden variable governs the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles. Unlike other formulations of quantum mechanics, it provides a way to calculate the trajectory of a particle. Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time. The upshot? In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old. ” . http://www.livescience.com... And here is the published paper: (. http://www.sciencedirect.com...) This new idea would essentially completely exterminate any need for a creator. Aside from cosmological ideas, belief in god is highly illogical. There is no proof for god. If there was proof for god, we wouldn’t need the foundation of most organized religions; faith. If pro can name one thing that unequivocally proves god exists he will be the first in history to do so. It is logical, therefore, that believing in something with no proof is just suspension of logic. Just because we don’t fully understand something doesn’t mean we should tie a supernatural or metaphysical deity to it. The classic example for this, of course, is that neat period in the renaissance where the church persecuted Galileo for assuming that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. Just look at the countless examples where religion persecuted new scientific beliefs, then, as time went by, adopted them. This is why the Catholic Church officially supports evolution. 100 years ago that would have never happened, because god created humanity, so how could we have evolved? Now it is so painfully obvious that evolution is real. It is so universally believed and consistently proven correct by the scientific community, that to oppose them in any kind of scientific, honest way is to alienate oneself from the serious scientific community – a field built to encourage new theoretical revelations. So, in logical terms, look at how many times we’ve said:1. We don’t understand (x) so a supernatural being must have created/caused it. …and look at how many times we’ve said:2. We used to think (x) was caused by logical, mathematical occurrences, but now we know it was caused by a supernatural being. The answer is blatant. We have never said the second one. In science, when something is so mathematical and consistent, we can pretty much assume it is a law, and yet some fringe scientists and true believers continue to defend the second point. This is suspension of logic. This is ignorance on a frightening scale. As religious folk often do when faced with unequivocal evidence, the argument falls into emotional, circumstantial evidence, like “I believe in god because I can see his hand in my life” or “I believe in god because he loves me” or “I believe that god is inside everybody”. The argument dies the moment it enters this realm, because there is nothing anybody can do to argue logically with emotion, especially when emotion is tied with memories – just know that logic has died. This proof, paired with the rampant inconsistency in organized religion, makes belief in a supernatural god incredibly illogical. I’m not arguing that there is zero reason to assume that there might be a god. What I am saying is that the chances are so slim that it just doesn’t make logical sense to parade oneself around as a ‘believer’. The ‘god of the gaps’ argument is just so dreadfully tired.