Is it reasonable to believe in God?

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that God exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

[brunumb]

Again, you miss the point. I am not sharing my opinion as some lone wolf. I am sharing the opinion of those that know better.

Maybe those who say it is unreasonable to believe in God know even better. Or are you going to play the 'my team is bigger than your team' card to determine what is actually the truth? As it is nearing Christmas let me just say "Bah!, Humbug".

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #194]

You are objectively wrong. Who are the great minds that can tell us if something is reasonable or not? Logicians perhaps? Philosophers? Some dude on debatingchristianty?

The first two, yes, the later, no way. So how about you do this if you wish to be taken seriously? Show a logician or philosopher that explains why believing in God cannot be reasonable. I will wait.

Lomfpoc

It was you, some dude on debatingchristianity, who said it was reasonable to believe in God.

Except, I go with what the philosophers say, such as the agnostic Joseph Schmid who says it can be reasonable to believe in God. It depends on the reasons of course.

I only hear it is unreasonable from a few people on forums like this.

Yet you bemoan 'dudes' on debatingchristianity declaring what's reasonable, as you declare what's reasonable.

Theists say the darndest things.

Again, you miss the point. I am not sharing my opinion as some lone wolf. I am sharing the opinion of those that know better.

Yes, you, " some dude on debatingchristianity" have declared who of that bunch is "reasonable", as you fuss about "some dude on debatingchristianity" declaring something reasonable or not.

Just own it, dude.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #202]

The point is lost on you. I see no reason to continue. You can believe as you must.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #202]

The point is lost on you. I see no reason to continue. You can believe as you must.

Of course it must be me misunderstanding, not your astounding lack of self awareness.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #194]

You are objectively wrong. Who are the great minds that can tell us if something is reasonable or not? Logicians perhaps? Philosophers? Some dude on debatingchristianty?

The first two, yes, the later, no way. So how about you do this if you wish to be taken seriously? Show a logician or philosopher that explains why believing in God cannot be reasonable. I will wait.

Lomfpoc

It was you, some dude on debatingchristianity, who said it was reasonable to believe in God.

Except, I go with what the philosophers say, such as the agnostic Joseph Schmid who says it can be reasonable to believe in God. It depends on the reasons of course.

I only hear it is unreasonable from a few people on forums like this.

Yet you bemoan 'dudes' on debatingchristianity declaring what's reasonable, as you declare what's reasonable.

Theists say the darndest things.

Again, you miss the point. I am not sharing my opinion as some lone wolf. I am sharing the opinion of those that know better.

Yes, you, " some dude on debatingchristianity" have declared who of that bunch is "reasonable", as you fuss about "some dude on debatingchristianity" declaring something reasonable or not.

Just own it, dude.

Yep, fallacy after fallacy, reversed burden of proof, appeal to numbers (1) , doorstoop evangelist parting shot. our pal cannot see that he is the one that cannot see. i know because I've seen it before. Consistently. I think (and this is an observation, not a sideswipe) that Aquinas 4 God could deconvert. He is smart, knows his stuff, has the evidence before Him and only Faith prevents it. I could be wrong, but I get the same vibes as with my old opponent, Seeker, who turned up on my last board, deconverted.

(1) I was going to say 'appeal to authority'but he refers to an expert in the field. Mind, I have seen much of quotemining, misrepresentation and reading into hypotheticals stuff that supports their faith that I can no longer credit such name - dropping.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #202]

The point is lost on you. I see no reason to continue. You can believe as you must.

Of course it must be me misunderstanding, not your astounding lack of self awareness.

Of course. The astounding and overweening pride of those who believe On Faith that they are right, even when proven wrong is the sad result of Faithbased thinking, and it does not only apply to religion. It's a human foible and a symptom of what the believers, with an irony totally lost on them call 'imperfect human perceptions' when they want to dismiss science, unaware (or not wanting to know) that it is science that is designed to eliminate human error, and Faith is designed to hold it up as the greatest Good. The self deception and self -illusion of Theist - thinkers is fascinating, truly fascinating.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #202]

The point is lost on you. I see no reason to continue. You can believe as you must.

Fallacy after fallacy. Swindle after swindle, dirty trick after dirty trick. You are the one who will not see the point, You are the one who wants to end the discussion with a Last Word, You are the one who wants to beleive as youlike.

I'm saying this because I think you are smart, and you deserve better than this faith - based house of overplayed cards, built on sand. I am sure you know it (as deep down, many of them do) but the faith -habit has seeped into your psyche, and it is hard to give up. I know.

"I think this food would do you good, if you could just try". In rejecting Genesis as true (other than a true myth). Irreligious theism is the first nibble of the bread that didn't come down from heaven, but was made in human bakeries and is Real. Theism aside,you know one man - made religion is no more than any other.

p.s even got a name for you "Aquinas forgot".

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #194]

You are objectively wrong. Who are the great minds that can tell us if something is reasonable or not? Logicians perhaps? Philosophers? Some dude on debatingchristianty?

The first two, yes, the later, no way. So how about you do this if you wish to be taken seriously? Show a logician or philosopher that explains why believing in God cannot be reasonable. I will wait.

Lomfpoc

It was you, some dude on debatingchristianity, who said it was reasonable to believe in God.

Except, I go with what the philosophers say, such as the agnostic Joseph Schmid who says it can be reasonable to believe in God. It depends on the reasons of course.

I only hear it is unreasonable from a few people on forums like this.

Yet you bemoan 'dudes' on debatingchristianity declaring what's reasonable, as you declare what's reasonable.

Theists say the darndest things.

Again, you miss the point. I am not sharing my opinion as some lone wolf. I am sharing the opinion of those that know better.

Yes, you, " some dude on debatingchristianity" have declared who of that bunch is "reasonable", as you fuss about "some dude on debatingchristianity" declaring something reasonable or not.

Just own it, dude.

Yep, fallacy after fallacy, reversed burden of proof, appeal to numbers (1) , doorstoop evangelist parting shot. our pal cannot see that he is the one that cannot see. i know because I've seen it before. Consistently. I think (and this is an observation, not a sideswipe) that Aquinas 4 God could deconvert. He is smart, knows his stuff, has the evidence before Him and only Faith prevents it. I could be wrong, but I get the same vibes as with my old opponent, Seeker, who turned up on my last board, deconverted.

(1) I was going to say 'appeal to authority'but he refers to an expert in the field. Mind, I have seen much of quotemining, misrepresentation and reading into hypotheticals stuff that supports their faith that I can no longer credit such name - dropping.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #202]

The point is lost on you. I see no reason to continue. You can believe as you must.

Of course it must be me misunderstanding, not your astounding lack of self awareness.

Of course. The astounding and overweening pride of those who believe On Faith that they are right, even when proven wrong is the sad result of Faithbased thinking, and it does not only apply to religion. It's a human foible and a symptom of what the believers, with an irony totally lost on them call 'imperfect human perceptions' when they want to dismiss science, unaware (or not wanting to know) that it is science that is designed to eliminate human error, and Faith is designed to hold it up as the greatest Good. The self deception and self -illusion of Theist - thinkers is fascinating, truly fascinating.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #202]

The point is lost on you. I see no reason to continue. You can believe as you must.

Fallacy after fallacy. Swindle after swindle, dirty trick after dirty trick. You are the one who will not see the point, You are the one who wants to end the discussion with a Last Word, You are the one who wants to beleive as youlike.

I'm saying this because I think you are smart, and you deserve better than this faith - based house of overplayed cards, built on sand. I am sure you know it (as deep down, many of them do) but the faith -habit has seeped into your psyche, and it is hard to give up. I know.

"I think this food would do you good, if you could just try". In rejecting Genesis as true (other than a true myth). Irreligious theism is the first nibble of the bread that didn't come down from heaven, but was made in human bakeries and is Real. Theism aside,you know one man - made religion is no more than any other.

p.s even got a name for you "Aquinas forgot".

Yet, you guys have done nothing to show God doesn't exist. You have done nothing to show that belief in God is unreasonable.

Let's think about something for a moment. You said I appeared to authority. Is that always a fallacy? Let's start there.

[JoeyKnothead]

Yet, you guys have done nothing to show God doesn't exist. You have done nothing to show that belief in God is unreasonable.
...

I'm just here for the lulz at this point. Ya know, your fretting what "some dude on debatingchristianity" calls reasonable, then you, "some dude on debatingchristianity", declaring something reasonable.

[AquinasForGod]

Yet, you guys have done nothing to show God doesn't exist. You have done nothing to show that belief in God is unreasonable.
...

I'm just here for the lulz at this point. Ya know, your fretting what "some dude on debatingchristianity" calls reasonable, then you, "some dude on debatingchristianity", declaring something reasonable.

You are still confused it seems. Professionals say it belief in God can be reasonable. You are not a professional, obviously.

[JoeyKnothead]

Yet, you guys have done nothing to show God doesn't exist. You have done nothing to show that belief in God is unreasonable.
...

I'm just here for the lulz at this point. Ya know, your fretting what "some dude on debatingchristianity" calls reasonable, then you, "some dude on debatingchristianity", declaring something reasonable.

You are still confused it seems. Professionals say it belief in God can be reasonable. You are not a professional, obviously.

You're missing what I'm finding so amusing.

The irony of you, "some dude on debatingchristianity" stating or implying you don't trust "some dude on debatingchristianity" declaring something 'reasonable', as you, "some dude on debatingchristianity" declared you thought something or someone 'reasonable'.
(Look at from the perspective of me trying to see which of you two present a 'reasonable')

I get that you trust as reasonable arguments others have presented maybe beyond these walls, and dare I say it, that's reasonable. It just reads funny how you told it. That's all I'm saying here. Your point is not lost on me, it's just I find amusement in the phrasing.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #194]

You are objectively wrong. Who are the great minds that can tell us if something is reasonable or not? Logicians perhaps? Philosophers? Some dude on debatingchristianty?

The first two, yes, the later, no way. So how about you do this if you wish to be taken seriously? Show a logician or philosopher that explains why believing in God cannot be reasonable. I will wait.

Lomfpoc

It was you, some dude on debatingchristianity, who said it was reasonable to believe in God.

Except, I go with what the philosophers say, such as the agnostic Joseph Schmid who says it can be reasonable to believe in God. It depends on the reasons of course.

I only hear it is unreasonable from a few people on forums like this.

Yet you bemoan 'dudes' on debatingchristianity declaring what's reasonable, as you declare what's reasonable.

Theists say the darndest things.

Again, you miss the point. I am not sharing my opinion as some lone wolf. I am sharing the opinion of those that know better.

Yes, you, " some dude on debatingchristianity" have declared who of that bunch is "reasonable", as you fuss about "some dude on debatingchristianity" declaring something reasonable or not.

Just own it, dude.

Yep, fallacy after fallacy, reversed burden of proof, appeal to numbers (1) , doorstoop evangelist parting shot. our pal cannot see that he is the one that cannot see. i know because I've seen it before. Consistently. I think (and this is an observation, not a sideswipe) that Aquinas 4 God could deconvert. He is smart, knows his stuff, has the evidence before Him and only Faith prevents it. I could be wrong, but I get the same vibes as with my old opponent, Seeker, who turned up on my last board, deconverted.

(1) I was going to say 'appeal to authority'but he refers to an expert in the field. Mind, I have seen much of quotemining, misrepresentation and reading into hypotheticals stuff that supports their faith that I can no longer credit such name - dropping.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #202]

The point is lost on you. I see no reason to continue. You can believe as you must.

Of course it must be me misunderstanding, not your astounding lack of self awareness.

Of course. The astounding and overweening pride of those who believe On Faith that they are right, even when proven wrong is the sad result of Faithbased thinking, and it does not only apply to religion. It's a human foible and a symptom of what the believers, with an irony totally lost on them call 'imperfect human perceptions' when they want to dismiss science, unaware (or not wanting to know) that it is science that is designed to eliminate human error, and Faith is designed to hold it up as the greatest Good. The self deception and self -illusion of Theist - thinkers is fascinating, truly fascinating.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #202]

The point is lost on you. I see no reason to continue. You can believe as you must.

Fallacy after fallacy. Swindle after swindle, dirty trick after dirty trick. You are the one who will not see the point, You are the one who wants to end the discussion with a Last Word, You are the one who wants to beleive as youlike.

I'm saying this because I think you are smart, and you deserve better than this faith - based house of overplayed cards, built on sand. I am sure you know it (as deep down, many of them do) but the faith -habit has seeped into your psyche, and it is hard to give up. I know.

"I think this food would do you good, if you could just try". In rejecting Genesis as true (other than a true myth). Irreligious theism is the first nibble of the bread that didn't come down from heaven, but was made in human bakeries and is Real. Theism aside,you know one man - made religion is no more than any other.

p.s even got a name for you "Aquinas forgot".

Yet, you guys have done nothing to show God doesn't exist. You have done nothing to show that belief in God is unreasonable.

Let's think about something for a moment. You said I appeared to authority. Is that always a fallacy? Let's start there.

Let's start and finish there as you are yet again, and insistently doing it all wrong. The case for a god fails if YOU can't prove it, it doesn't succeed if we can't disprove it. This is inverted logic on your part because you begin with the assumption that God is real until disproved. Wrong.

Now as to authority, this is an old fiddle and we goddless are familiar with it. Aside that the Bible apologists will wag scientists around as an authority if they support (or can be made to look like it) the god - claim, if they debunk it, then science is mere fallible human opinion. Aside that, authority is not valid unless they are experts in that field. Thus an expert in molecular chemistry may not be an authority on evolution. There is also the point that Godfaith can mess with the expertise. There are the notorious examples of a geologist and a Biologist who write perfectly good science papers using deep time Geology and evolutionary biology, but discard all of that when they talk Creationism.In fact they make the most schoolboy blunders and clearly they are no authority at all, never mind their certificates.

Even experts can be wrong as Bible apologists often say of science. Authority has some claim to be listened to more than any bod in the street. But they are not above being wrong and and are not Holy Writ, even if they argue for it.