Why do you believe in God?

[logical thinking]

Why do you believe in God?

What specific argument or evidence is it, that persuades you?

Can you please outline the argument or piece of evidence that you believe is the STRONGEST reason to believe in God?

For example, is it the beauty and majesty of trees? Is it the Kalam Cosmological argument? Pascal's wager? Is it that you witnessed what you believe is a miracle? Is it the fact that you think the Bible contains prophecies? Is it because it feels good to believe in something greater than yourself?

Why do you believe in God?

[JLB32168]

So, there are three states a premise can be according to you: True, false, and unknown.

Hmm " I would say that they must be true or false " that unknown doesnt really change whether or not they are true or false. The ancients didnt know if the moon was a planet or a moon but that doesnt change the fact that it was definitely a moon since it doesnt orbit a star but another planet.

Arguments can only be sound or unsound.

Agreed.

You, however, state that if the truth of the premises are unknown then the argument is unsound since a sound argument must have true premises. Thats where your problem lies. All of your defintions say that an argument is unsound if the premises arent true. If the truth of the premise is unknown, which none of the definitions you cited take into account, you have decided that theyre on the same playing field as false ones and youve proclaimed they are unsound arguments, as if your verbal fiat was the final arbiter.

That is where I take issue.

And of course, all of this discussion is your red herring foray into finicky, over-emphasis on insignificant details of little relevance to my point that A)You cannot prove that Im wrong (not that Im asserting that Im right " only that I might be, which is enough for me) and B)Youre full loath to concede that anything I might have to say could contain the twentieth part of one poor scruple of accuracy.

And this is just another way that I like to expose the biased viewpoint of most skeptics/atheists on this board. I like to think that others will see it and draw the same conclusions that I have, namely, that truth should enlighten and edify and since atheism doesn't seem to rid mankind of narrow-minded, provincialist thinking it most likely doesn't represent truth (truth being "Deities don't exist").

I hope my position has been clearly understood but I'll be happy to clarify further if requested.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

So, there are three states a premise can be according to you: True, false, and unknown.

Hmm " I would say that they must be true or false " that unknown doesnt really change whether or not they are true or false. The ancients didnt know if the moon was a planet or a moon but that doesnt change the fact that it was definitely a moon since it doesnt orbit a star but another planet.

Arguments can only be sound or unsound.

Agreed.

You, however, state that if the truth of the premises are unknown then the argument is unsound since a sound argument must have true premises. Thats where your problem lies. All of your defintions say that an argument is unsound if the premises arent true. If the truth of the premise is unknown, which none of the definitions you cited take into account, you have decided that theyre on the same playing field as false ones and youve proclaimed they are unsound arguments, as if your verbal fiat was the final arbiter.

That is where I take issue.

And of course, all of this discussion is your red herring foray into finicky, over-emphasis on insignificant details of little relevance to my point that A)You cannot prove that Im wrong (not that Im asserting that Im right " only that I might be, which is enough for me) and B)Youre full loath to concede that anything I might have to say could contain the twentieth part of one poor scruple of accuracy.

And this is just another way that I like to expose the biased viewpoint of most skeptics/atheists on this board. I like to think that others will see it and draw the same conclusions that I have, namely, that truth should enlighten and edify and since atheism doesn't seem to rid mankind of narrow-minded, provincialist thinking it most likely doesn't represent truth (truth being "Deities don't exist").

I hope my position has been clearly understood but I'll be happy to clarify further if requested.

Youre full loath to concede that anything I might have to say could contain the twentieth part of one poor scruple of accuracy.

The reason for this is because believers invariably conflate their claims and their faith in the truth of their claims as being the same as actual physical evidence. For example, the Gospels and Acts of the apostles indicate that the disciples of Jesus claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected from the dead. Acts of the Apostles indicates specifically that the disciples claimed that Jesus lifted bodily off of the ground and flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. The evidence indicates that the disciples of Jesus claimed these things to be true. The evidence also overwhelmingly indicates that dead things are incapable of such actions, however. Therefore the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the corpse of Jesus could not possibly have become resurrected from the dead and subsequently flown away. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that, while claims that Jesus became resurrected from the dead and flew away were expressed by his disciples after his death, the evidence concerning the actual capabilities of dead bodies to become reanimated or to achieve and sustain controlled flight conclusively indicates that this claim is untrue. The evidence is that Jesus died, and that after his death his disciples spread the rumor that he had risen from the dead and then flew off up into the sky. When we examine the evidence openly, this is the reasonable conclusion that the evidence presents us with.

Declaring that God exists, can do anything, and that therefore God could choose to cause the corpse of Jesus to return to life and then fly away is not evidence! These are religious claims sustained by faith for which no actual evidence is provided. Christians invariably commingle the concept of "evidence" with their personal faith as if they were interchangeable. But you see, "evidence" (that which can physically be shown to be true), and "faith" (beliefs for which no physical evidence has been or can be presented) are actually polar opposite in nature. Steadfastly presenting ones beliefs and ones faith in their beliefs as if they are evidence does not serve to change that.

[logical thinking]

So, there are three states a premise can be according to you: True, false, and unknown.

Hmm " I would say that they must be true or false " that unknown doesnt really change whether or not they are true or false. The ancients didnt know if the moon was a planet or a moon but that doesnt change the fact that it was definitely a moon since it doesnt orbit a star but another planet.

The only circumstance when an argument is sound, is when we know the premises are true.

If we don't know they're true, then the argument is unsound.


You must answer this question with a yes or no:
Do we know that the premises of your argument for God are true?
If the answer is yes, the argument is sound
If the answer is no, the argument is unsound.

It really is that simple.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 192:

For example, the Gospels and Acts of the apostles indicate that the disciples of Jesus claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected from the dead. Acts of the Apostles indicates specifically that the disciples claimed that Jesus lifted bodily off of the ground and flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. The evidence indicates that the disciples of Jesus claimed these things to be true.
...

I remember I used to get this form of vitamin a that was a black pyramid of some gelatenous / plasticy material, and I'm here to tell it, I have myself hopped up and went to flyin', only I wasn't dead when I did.

With that in mind, I think it reasonable and rational to conclude either Jesus, them disciples, or all of 'em had some of that black pyramid. And it was good.

Declaring that God exists, can do anything, and that therefore God could choose to cause the corpse of Jesus to return to life and then fly away is not evidence! These are religious claims sustained by faith for which no actual evidence is provided. Christians invariably commingle the concept of "evidence" with their personal faith as if they were interchangeable. But you see, "evidence" (that which can physically be shown to be true), and "faith" (beliefs for which no physical evidence has been or can be presented) are actually polar opposite in nature. Steadfastly presenting ones beliefs and ones faith in their beliefs as if they are evidence does not serve to change that.

Very good point. Theists (supernaturalists) consider their beliefs "true and factual", otherwise, they wouldn't believe 'em. The problem for 'em invariably comes when they seek to convince folks who don't already believe right along with 'em.

It would seem that having these sorts of conversations with fellow believers, there's little chance these claims would be challenged, no matter how outrageous they may be. Then, when coming into an atmosphere of balanced debate, with rigorous scrutiny, well there we go. The theist becomes lost as a cow at a square dance.

[JLB32168]

The reason for this is because believers invariably conflate their claims and their faith in the truth of their claims as being the same as actual physical evidence.

Im not believers. I am one specific believer. I didnt discuss the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles or any of that. If youre going to rebut arguments then rebut arguments that I make and not arguments that youve heard generic believers make.

I really dont understand the atheist/skeptic propensity to cite an individual posters words and then rebut an argument that some other theist or group of theists made, rather than address the argument that the individual made.

Heres the perfect example: [font=Times New Roman]Declaring that God exists, can do anything, and that therefore God could choose to cause the corpse of Jesus to return to life and then fly away is not evidence![/font] I didnt say anything remotely to what youve written and yet you cited my post in your rebuttal. WTH??

If you skeptics/atheists cant address the arguments that people actually present but have to make up shiznit that you wish people had presented then you clearly have nothing else to say.

[JLB32168]

The only circumstance when an argument is sound, is when we know the premises are true. If we don't know they're true, then the argument is unsound.

And I suppose that if you say it enough times you think it will make it fact/true.

If the truth of the premises is unknown then you cannot say that the argument is sound or unsound. You can only determine if it is valid. One source said that unsound arguments include an invalid argument with true premises, which we dont have here; a valid argument with one or more untrue premises, which we also dont have; and an invalid argument with untrue premises " also not what we have. The option of valid argument composed of premises of unknown truth is not listed as an example of an unsound argument; although, I bet you wish it was listed.

We call what youre doing an argumentum ad nauseam or broken record in logic/forensics class " when one merely repeats a claim over and over until s/he fatigues the opponent into leaving so that Victory can be proclaimed.

To quote you, It really is that simple.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The reason for this is because believers invariably conflate their claims and their faith in the truth of their claims as being the same as actual physical evidence.

Im not believers. I am one specific believer. I didnt discuss the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles or any of that. If youre going to rebut arguments then rebut arguments that I make and not arguments that youve heard generic believers make.

I really dont understand the atheist/skeptic propensity to cite an individual posters words and then rebut an argument that some other theist or group of theists made, rather than address the argument that the individual made.

Heres the perfect example: [font=Times New Roman]Declaring that God exists, can do anything, and that therefore God could choose to cause the corpse of Jesus to return to life and then fly away is not evidence![/font] I didnt say anything remotely to what youve written and yet you cited my post in your rebuttal. WTH??

If you skeptics/atheists cant address the arguments that people actually present but have to make up shiznit that you wish people had presented then you clearly have nothing else to say.

Let's be very specific about you then. Is it or is it not true that you believe that reports spread by the disciples of Jesus after his execution that Jesus had not only returned to life but that his corpse subsequently lifted bodily up off of the ground and flew off into the sky, are not only true, but represent valid historical evidence of a genuine act of God?

If you are prepared to deny that you consider these claims valid evidence for the truth of the resurrection then I will apologize for putting words in your mouth. If you are NOT prepared to deny that the post crucifixion claims of the disciples of Jesus that he came back to life and flew away represent valid historical evidence for the truth of the resurrection, then I was correct all along and methinks thou doth protest too much.

[logical thinking]

The only circumstance when an argument is sound, is when we know the premises are true. If we don't know they're true, then the argument is unsound.

And I suppose that if you say it enough times you think it will make it fact/true.

If the truth of the premises is unknown then you cannot say that the argument is sound or unsound. You can only determine if it is valid. One source said that unsound arguments include an invalid argument with true premises, which we dont have here; a valid argument with one or more untrue premises, which we also dont have; and an invalid argument with untrue premises " also not what we have. The option of valid argument composed of premises of unknown truth is not listed as an example of an unsound argument; although, I bet you wish it was listed.

We call what youre doing an argumentum ad nauseam or broken record in logic/forensics class " when one merely repeats a claim over and over until s/he fatigues the opponent into leaving so that Victory can be proclaimed.

To quote you, It really is that simple.

Ok, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Your position as I understand it is that you have an argument for God which:

1) Is valid - the conclusion follows from the premises
2) Is NOT unsound - the premises have not been proven to be false
3) Is "logical" because it possesses attributes 1) and 2)

I agree with 1) Your argument is valid

I disagree with 2) An argument is unsound unless the premises have been demonstrated to be true, it's not unsound only when they've been proven false

I disagree with your use of the word "logical" here.

So there you have it. I can't convince you, you can't convince me, and that's ok.

Now, just for the sake of argument, I'm going to adopt your position and see where it leads us.


Look at this argument:

Premise 1: Parallel universes exist
Premise 2: In one parallel universe, human beings have 17 legs
Conclusion: Some human beings have 17 legs


Note that this argument possesses all the attributes of your argument

1) It's valid - the conclusion follows from the premises
2) I'ts NOT unsound - the premises have not been proven to be false
3) It's "logical" because it possesses attributes 1) and 2)


What is my point? Your bar for what constitutes a logical argument is so low, that an ABSURD argument for people having 17 legs checks all the same boxes your argument checks.

However high or low an opinion either of us has of your argument for God, the argument irrefutably has the same attributes as an argument for people with 17 legs.

Your argument for God is "logical" in the same way that an argument for people having 17 legs is "logical", in that the conclusion follows from the premises, and we don't know if the premises are true or false.

If the definition of "great athlete" included a 400 pound diabetic guy who is physically unable to get up from his sofa and never played any sports ever, then Mike Tyson and Michael Jordan would have no justification for being proud of being "great athletes".

Similarly, if your definition of "logical" includes an argument for people having 17 legs, then you shouldn't feel so proud that your argument for God is also "logical".


Can you make any argument for God that isn't utterly and completely meaningless?

[JLB32168]

Ok, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Im cool with that.

Your position as I understand it is that you have an argument for God which:

No, no, no, no, no " My argument is that belief in God is logical. I dont assert that God exists (although I believe He does). This is hopeless

What is my point? Your bar for what constitutes a logical argument is so low, that an ABSURD argument for people having 17 legs checks all the same boxes your argument checks.

And yet, if the universe has an infinite number of multiverses layered one on top of the other, most theoretical physicists would agree that the conclusion you named is a possibility in one of those. In fact, if there are an infinite number of multiverses, your conclusion is true in one of them.

Can you make any argument for God that isn't utterly and completely meaningless?

What you regard as meaningless interests you alone.

[logical thinking]

Ok, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Im cool with that.

Your position as I understand it is that you have an argument for God which:

No, no, no, no, no " My argument is that belief in God is logical. I dont assert that God exists (although I believe He does). This is hopeless

RIGHT! THAT'S WHAT I SAID!!!

MY WORDS: Your position as I understand it is that you have an argument for God which is "logical"

YOUR WORDS: My argument is that belief in God is logical

We're on the same page. I just disagree with you. But I understand.

Your argument is that belief in God is logical.

My argument is that belief in people with 17 legs is just as "logical".


Do you agree that by the same criteria that makes belief in god logical, belief in people with 17 legs is logical too?

What is my point? Your bar for what constitutes a logical argument is so low, that an ABSURD argument for people having 17 legs checks all the same boxes your argument checks.

And yet, if the universe has an infinite number of multiverses layered one on top of the other, most theoretical physicists would agree that the conclusion you named is a possibility in one of those. In fact, if there are an infinite number of multiverses, your conclusion is true in one of them.

Right. So belief in people with 17 legs is logical. Ok, I guess that answers my question.

IF there are an infinite number of universes, and we haven't proved that there aren't, then people with 17 legs exist in one of them. Therefore belief in the existence of people with 17 legs is logical, as defined by you. Got it.


Say it with me!

I, JLB, am arguing that belief in God and belief in people with 17 legs is logical!