Have a look at this here website:
http://proofthatgodexists.org/
Step through the 'quiz', see what happens. I'd be interested in seeing the 4-ch'ers responses.
>>300
And still no justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature outside of God, from anyone here.
How can you call yourself a Christian if you refuse to help those who come to you for guidance? Did Jesus ever turn away those who came seeking his help? You have stated that you can resolve this riddle that is causing me to turn away from God, yet you refuse to do so! Why?
>What was positted, however, is nothing like just changing the names, a denial of the God of Christianity was included. For that I would need to see YOUR bible, and the justification for it, so I could properly refute it.
Bla, bla, "me no understand", bla, bla. Basically, you're still dodging.
Here is an easy, step by step guide:
You have no excuse left. Answer.
By the way, where do you get the justification for your reasoning anyways? How can you logically argue against me without borrowing from my worldview? Remember, my worldview is the only worldview that give a justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
I am not sure he even has a bible, he does not seem to be a very good christian!
> If God did not exist, rationality would not be possible. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God. I see that you enjoy ducking this question as well.
People have a tendency to agree with each other. What can I say? That's human nature.
> When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
If this is your belief, then you think we are all denying the existence of God whom we know exists deep down, rather than simply not believing in God. If that is so there is no hope in arguing with you do not believe we are arguing logically, so you cannot take our claims at face value. This explains why you didn't want to read http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ -- it is an atheist site so the author is obviously lying to himself.
What you need to understand is that no atheist thinks he is "denying" anything. I honestly believe my position to be morally and logically coherent. The mere existence of a generally agreed-upon system of logic and morals does not prove to me that someone had to create it. It says to me that people are smart. That's nice.
In twenty words or less, the fact that people can agree upon things such as logic is not sufficient evidence for God's existence.
shitty thread wasshoi
>>307
Then why don't you use sage to add such insightful statements?
When the thread is already at the top, does it really matter whether people like >>307 use sage?
>The mere existence of a generally agreed-upon system of logic and morals does not prove to me that someone had to create it. It says to me that people are smart. That's nice.
So, according to your worldview, the laws of logic are not 'true' they are merely agreed upon.
I could go on, but surely now you can see the absurdity of postulating that the laws of logic are 'agreed upon.' One last question though:
7. Is the law of non-contradiction univerasally binding on our arguments?
> 1. Take your bible.
My Bible is for my worldview. If you wish to postulate another worldview, you will have to produce your own Bible.
>I am not sure he even has a bible, he does not seem to be a very good christian!
I have a Bible, and I never said I was a good Christian.
> 1. When was the meeting?
The "meeting" started at the beginning of human history and it is still in progress.
> 2. How could you determine what 'smart' was before the laws of logic were agreed upon?
Obviously before there were any humans to observe, no human thought anything was smart.
> 3. Could they have agreed that A could be not A at the same time and in the same way, or is the law of non-contradiction universally binding?
Someone could have agreed upon that. It would be silly and it would force me to think of them as illogical but there's nothing stopping them.
> 4. If enough people agreed that A could be not A at the same time and in the same way, would that law then be true?
According to me? No. According to "reality"? The problem with your thesis is that you think that reality includes human concepts such as logic and morals. There is no such thing as logic or morals in the objective bubble of reality, only material things which we can observe.
> 5. How many people does it take to agree upon a law of logic before it is valid?
Who will judge whether it is valid? Since God does not exist nobody can perfectly objectively say what is valid. I am doing the judging, so in my opinion, only I have to agree to make it valid.
> 6. Did the law of non-conradiction apply before humans came to this 'agreement?'
There are no immaterial things outside our minds. Therefore, the concept of a "law of non-contradiction" is something within our minds, and was invented when we first thought of it. This is a rather worthless statement about linguistics and you cannot in any way convince me that God exists with a reductio ad absurdum based on this.
Apparently not, since you refuse to help your brothers in their hour of need!
>>311
Which is it:
In any case, you have been given my bible, which significantly differs from your bible - after all, it says that there is no christian god - and you have been given my worldview. You have every little piece of information you asked for, even though that is not even required for my argumentation - remember, you have to defend against every possible argument, against every argument that could be made against you. All of this has been laid out for you on a level so low that your average 10 year old should be able to understand it. Tell me why I would be wrong while you would be right. If you can not do so, for whatever reason it may be, don't bother with more lame excuses, just shut up and get out.
>Someone could have agreed upon that. It would be silly and it would force me to think of them as illogical but there's nothing stopping them.
It would only be 'silly,' and 'illogical,' because you would be evaluating them according to the 'real,' 'universal' law of non-contradiction.
>There is no such thing as logic or morals in the objective bubble of reality, only material things which we can observe.
Is this true, and how do you know?
>Since God does not exist nobody can perfectly objectively say what is valid.
Is that statement valid? (By the way, you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to know that God does not exist. In other words you would have to be God to say there is no God. A logical contradiction.
>There are no immaterial things outside our minds.
Prove this please.
>the concept of a "law of non-contradiction" is something within our minds, and was invented when we first thought of it.
Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans 'thought of' the law of non-contradiction?
How do you account for 'immaterial entities' which you claim are 'in our minds' in your worldview.
You also missed my last question. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments?
>In any case, you have been given my bible
No I haven't. Still waiting though.
>and you have been given my worldview
No I haven't. Still waiting though.
>If you can not do so, for whatever reason it may be, don't bother with more lame excuses, just shut up and get out.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
> Is this true, and how do you know?
I know because I think it's logical. Obviously you disagree. We have different opinions. Or is your opinion the only right one, because you are a Christian and I am an atheist?
> Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans 'thought of' the law of non-contradiction?
That doesn't make any sense because we weren't around to observe it, so nobody could have made that judgement.
> Is that statement valid?
I say so.
> How do you account for 'immaterial entities' which you claim are 'in our minds' in your worldview.
Do you think that everything we think about is actually something God came up with? That's creepy.
> You also missed my last question. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments?
Yes, because we both agree it exists.
The hillarity of this exchange is that we both know that you are lying. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend the worldview you really do hold. How do you sleep at night?
My worldview is out there for the world to see, and all you can do is come up with lame arguments to hide your own.
Funny, in a tragically sad kind of way.
The hillarity of this exchange is that we both know that you are lying. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend the worldview you really do hold. How do you sleep at night?
My worldview is out there for the world to see, and all you can do is come up with lame arguments to hide your own.
Funny, in a tragically sad kind of way.
(Also known as: "NO U" or "You do realize that the same works against you, do you?")
>You're not a Van Til or a Bahnsen
No kidding, but at least I expose myself and my worldview for all to examine and attempt to refute, while you hide your identity and your worldview. Typical.
> at least I expose myself and my worldview for all to examine and attempt to refute
This is not a true claim - for it to be true, you would have to understand what "refute" means, and you have repeatedly showed that you do not.
He seems to be done arguing and has moved on to proclaiming himself the victor and making ad hominem attacks.
He does seem to have given up. It's too bad, I actually had some hope he would stir up interesting discussion at first, but he turned out to be just another internet loudmouth.
Which "God" was being discussed here?
The force behind the Big Bang?
The problem is, no one here was interested in interesting discussion. Discussion goes both ways. Look at how many times I asked people here to state and justify their own worldviews. Look at how many answers I got. If people cannot justify logic in their worldview, or don't believe in logic at all, a logical discussion is senseless.
Ciao
Nobody else claims to have a logical proof of God. You do, thus the discussion is about you. But since you can't support your own claims, you try to turn the discussion to another topic, viz. other people's worldviews. But nobody's falling for it. You can't escape the burden of proof that easily. If you make claims, you have to support them.
PS: You still haven't answered >>287.
My worldview is perfectly logical, yours is necessarily illogical because you include God in it.
>My worldview is perfectly logical, yours is necessarily illogical because you include God in it.
Alright, for those of you who visit this thread, and don't want to read the whole thing to see what's going on, just read the claim in the above quote and watch the answers I get to my question.
What is your worldview, and how to you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
P.S. Don't hold your breath expecting anyone to answer this, I surely don't.
You still haven't answered >>287.
Look, buddy, I already answered this for you. All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things.
> Look, buddy, I already answered this for you. All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things.
Is that statement absolutely true?
Absolute truth is an immaterial concept.
my worldview?
onano, ergo sum (i masturbate, therefore i am)
logic is logical (if only from a linquistical point of view)
I observe, but I am aware that my observations are not accurate identifications of what I observe.
Using the laws of logic, I can make general statements about my observations. Using various of such statements I construct an idea about my environment. I can test these statements with new observations, to change my ideas about the world. I a aware that, due to faulty observations, my worldview is prone to error.
I am capable of creating hypothetical systems in my mind. Here I have the luxury to use not generalizations as building blocks, but axioms. These axioms are absolutely true within my hypothetical construct.
I don't believe that I can use the concept of absolute truth outside hypothetical constructs and in the world that I observe.
This all in reaction to >>333
>What is your worldview, and how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
>P.S. Don't hold your breath expecting anyone to answer this, I surely don't.
I think I have stated why I can't use the concept of 'absolute' on the real world within my worldview. I think it is fair to say that I can only think in my worldview. Until I expand my worldview - while keeping it coherent - I won't be able to use 'absolute' as a concept about the real world.
I recognize the possible existence of a God. However, without being able to observe this God, without being able to take notice of its existence, I cannot state anything about its existence. God will have to show himself to me.
Furthermore, I understand that I do not know the origin of the world, of myself, of the laws of logic. I do not know what they are made of either. Should I care? I don't know. I will only care once I know that the answers to these problems exist, and that they can be found by my own efforts. There is only one way this can happen: only by learning the answer will I believe there is an answer. A flawed option is to trust someone who I believe to have found such answers. I will not go that road.
perhaps I'm writing this as a tribute to the other people who showed interest in this thread, and who took effort in voicing their opinions. >>339, its not logic that convinces people, its the way you convey this logic. I advise you to read some books about logic if you want to continue this project. I advise you even more to take a course about logic in a college or university, because that generally helps more than books.
It's universally true in my mind. To you, I can only assume, it is not true, but for me it is perfectly true. I don't think you understand relative judgement yet.
>It's universally true in my mind.
This is a logical contradiction. Is it universally true, or is it only true in your mind? It cannot be both.
What if the universe exists only in my mind?
(lol solipsism)
>>342
Okay, I assume then that by "universally" you mean "everyone agrees upon it." Because I can't think of any other meaning for "universal."
In which case the statement, "Absolute truth is an immaterial concept," is not universally true. I know my dad for one thinks that absolute truth exists in some nether dimension which can be occasionally grasped.
>Okay, I assume then that by "universally" you mean "everyone agrees upon it."
No, that is actually the exact opposite of what I mean. Universally true means objectively true, or true for all people, at all times, despite personal opinion.
So is your statement: "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," universally true?
uhm, why are you avoiding >>340? you set up a challenge, you damn better not chicken out after somebody takes it.
How to win every argument, by Proofthatgodexists
Remember, the fourth step is crucial!
correct, let me expand it with the following frequently used technique to display suppreme logic.
"Is it absolutely true that" insert the main point of other persons argument here to make it sound that you are actually listening "is true?"
>>347
But is it universally true that the fourth step is crucial?
yes. given the possibility of reflection, future arguments may be lost, due to confusion. Then not every argument will be won.
>uhm, why are you avoiding >>340? you set up a challenge, you damn better not chicken out after somebody takes it.
Read the challenge again, I asked people to state their worldview and how they account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart form God. His 'masturbatory' worldview is not worthy of response, and he could not account for logic outside of God. This is my point. Those who claim logic exists, and use it, without acknowledging God, are trespassers on the Christian worldview. As you all will see, this trespassing is not going unnoticed.
Except that those who do acknowledge god as you do run into contradictions! Why is that?
I don't run into contradictions. Where did you get that idea?
The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview. Look, I am not going to get into apparent Biblical contradictions here (none of which detract from the central message by the way), surely you people are internet savvy enough to Google them.
Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved. You have faith in the logic you use to criticize my worldview. My worldview, at least, can account for this logic, yours cannot.
Why don't you direct me to the line where you account for the laws of logic outside of God, I can't find it.
I just read through the whole thread. Some of it was quite painful. But I'm glad I did. And this is still going on! Heheh. Now it's Spengbab time.
Hi, my name is Jason. And my world view is a bit of Objectivism, with knobs on. I speak only for myself. I can honestly agree to every stage of the argument on the proofthatgodexists.org site. Except the last step.
>How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic
Okay, here goes~
To be is to be something, to be self-identical. A is A, the rest follows from that. Non-contradiction flows from the fact of identity (A = A, so A isn't not A), and so on. 'Logical' and 'illogical' are adjectives that are properly applied to reasoning and ideas. A line of reasoning can break the law of non-contradiction. That makes it illogical. Logic is universal because existence is universal.
How do I know? I've seen it. I see (and hear and taste etc.) things in reality. Whatever they are, they're themselves. But... how do I know that fact is universal? Could it not happen, one day, that I encounter some rare and marvellous sort of thing that isn't itself? No. Never. For me to encounter such a thing it would have to be encounterable. Not not encounterable. This magic thing must be at least something. It must have an identity. Why not a self-contradictory identity, then? Consider the possibility of it being encounterable and not encounterable simultaneously. No, I don't have to consider thing because this is not a possibility. It's arbitrary nonsense. If anyone wishes to seriously put forward a case for this possibility... that would be interesting.
Eh.. that's enough for one post.
is it truly so hard to read beyond the first few lines?
your challenge was two parts.
1) give a differing worldview from yours
2) account for the laws of logic outside of god
I have provided 1, and I say that within my worldview it is impossible to answer 2.
However, I don't see failure at 2 as a failure of my worldview.
Ah yes, criticism of the site. The argument...
>The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This premise:
>without Him you couldn't prove anything.
Can you prove this? Why accept this point?
> The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview.
Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
> Look, I am not going to get into apparent Biblical contradictions here (none of which detract from the central message by the way)
That's how they detract from your message. Now, please refute this argument.
> Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved.
So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith, and not logic. Right? Then why bother with the proof in the first place, when you could just have faith without building a faulty proof?
Thanks for your input.
>A is A, the rest follows from that.
The law of identity is not a given. Certainly in what most non-theists consider a random universe, A could be B tommorow.
>Logic is universal because existence is universal.
These naturally do not necessarily follow, even so, universal knowledge is reserved for the Omniscient, and those to whom He has revealed knowledge.
>It's arbitrary nonsense. If anyone wishes to seriously put forward a case for this possibility... that would be interesting.
Well, having read this thread, you would have seen at least one person posit that the laws of logic are NOT universal. (the rest have mostly been silent on the matter).
>I have provided 1, and I say that within my worldview it is impossible to answer 2.
However, I don't see failure at 2 as a failure of my worldview.
> Can you prove this? Why accept this point?
This is proven with transcendental logic, i.e. the impossibility of the contrary. God is the necessaroy precondition for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature by the imposibility of the contrary. I am here to refute contrary proposals, but as you see they are few and far between.
There is no refutation necessary there. An "apparent" contradicition, does not a 'real' contradiction make. Naturally we will approach any interpretation of any apparent contradiction according to our presuppositions. You will seek the contradiction, I will seek the explanation. The difference being that only my worldview can account for the logic we use to talk argue about contradictions in the first place.
> No, that is actually the exact opposite of what I mean. Universally true means objectively true, or true for all people, at all times, despite personal opinion.
> So is your statement: "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," universally true?
LOL
Or, to put it less bluntly, of course it's not univerally true because the statement itself denies the concept of "universal truth" as you define it, and in fact it obviously isn't universally true anyway since you disagree with it.
Again, universal truth, has NOTHING to do with subjective agreement to what that truth is.
That would be like the math teacher saying there is no true answer to what is 2+2, because his students couldn't agree on the answer.
My question again: Is your statement "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," univerally true, or only true in your mind?
Formal logic is based on axioms. These are statements that are considered to be always true within the system. If there was room for doubt of these axioms, logic would be a pointless endeavor.
I suppose these axioms are God.
Of course, this means that we can create, destroy and manipulate God at will depending on the purpose we require Him for.
Oh, by the way, now your job is convincing me that the God of the axiom is the same entity as your Biblical God.
>Of course, this means that we can create, destroy and manipulate God at will depending on the purpose we require Him for.
Hardly.
> Oh, by the way, now your job is convincing me that the God of the axiom is the same entity as your Biblical God.
I have never believed, nor do I now believe, that I am capabable of convincing you of anything regarding God. The Bible teaches that you already know God, and that convincing you to submit to Him, is not my jurisdiction.
> Hardly.
Why not?
So was I.
First, since you apparently didn't bother reading them, I'll repeat the OTHER statements from >>361:
> The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview.
Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
> Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved.
So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith, and not logic. Right? Then why bother with the proof in the first place, when you could just have faith without building a faulty proof?
>Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
That fact the one accepts that logical criticism of ANYTHING is even possible presupposes that my worldview is true.
>So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith
All logical proofs rest on faith. My proofs rest on faith in God, while yours rests on faith in human reason. My faith, however, accounts for human reason, yours does not.
>>378 congratulations
you are the winner of the thread
you are the winner of life
<<want to play again? YES/NO>>
> That fact the one accepts that logical criticism of ANYTHING is even possible presupposes that my worldview is true.
You keep saying this. You have never once shown it to be true. Neither is it an answer to my question.
See, the argument "your worldview can't account for logic!" does not imply that your own can. You have to actually prove that first.
And I can just as well take the view that "logic exists", and thus be on equal footing with you, who claims "god implies logic and logic implies god". Both of us presuppose that we are right.
I could even claim, "logic exists, and god is contrary to logic", therefore, as logic exists (and you have to assume this or else you are not allowed to argue against me!), god does not exist!
(It is easy to see why the existence of god excludes logic - god is omnipotent, and can fool us into believing anything, thus we can never know if anything is true.)
> All logical proofs rest on faith. My proofs rest on faith in God, while yours rests on faith in human reason. My faith, however, accounts for human reason, yours does not.
So both of us take human reason on faith. Then why should I need to invoke god at all, since both stances ultimately rely on faith? Why is "faith in A, which implies B" better than "faith in B"? Applying Occam's razor, the latter is the simpler theory that serves the same purpose, and thus better.
>So both of us take human reason on faith. Then why should I need to invoke god at all, since both stances ultimately rely on faith?
No, I do not have faith in my human reason. I trust its validity as a gift from God. You have blind faith in your ability to reason, as simply presupposing it accounts for nothing.
>Applying Occam's razor, the latter is the simpler theory that serves the same purpose, and thus better.
"Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed." ~ Paul Manata
> No, I do not have faith in my human reason. I trust its validity as a gift from God. You have blind faith in your ability to reason, as simply presupposing it accounts for nothing.
So? You still have to have faith in something, as opposed to being able to use reason all the way. Once you've taken that step, what does it matter which thing you put your faith in?
> "Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed."
Exactly. So if I want to account for the laws of logic, god is an extra entity that is not needed. You, of course, want him to exist, but that is not sufficient reason to require him in the argument.
>So? You still have to have faith in something, as opposed to being able to use reason all the way. Once you've taken that step, what does it matter which thing you put your faith in?
ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith. Your faith however ACCOUNTS for nothing. All you are saying is 'logic exists because it exists,' hardly an argument.
> So if I want to account for the laws of logic, god is an extra entity that is not needed.
Then how do you account for the laws of logic?
>You, of course, want him to exist
You of course don't want Him to exist because you want to be your own god, and don't like the thought of accountability to Him. If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
> ALL reasoning BEGINS with faith. Your faith however ACCOUNTS for nothing. All you are saying is 'logic exists because it exists,' hardly an argument.
Neither does yours. Just because you derive something from something else that is implicitly assumed does not make it any more true than just implicitly assuming it directly. You still have to assume. And an argument does not become more valid by being more complex.
That is to say: An argument is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link in both cases is taking anything on faith, and thus both arguments are just as valid, or invalid.
> You of course don't want Him to exist because you want to be your own god, and don't like the thought of accountability to Him. If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
Entirely true, but I fail to see the relevance, unless you wanted to add another ad hominem fallacy to the list.
I'll give you one more: If I did believe in your god, I would not obey him, because from reading the bible, he sure is one big asshole and is not worthy of respect, much less worship.
(Incidentially, am I to take that argument as meaning that you refrain from sin merely because of fear of punishment, not of your own free will? Because I refrain from doing harm of my own free will.)
>If I were to invent a God, it would be one that would let me get away with my sin, not one that must punish sin.
But your God does let you get away with sin. You don't think you'll be punished, do you?
>That is to say: An argument is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link in both cases is taking anything on faith, and thus both arguments are just as valid, or invalid.
The validity of the argument is based on the 'reasonableness' of the faith, and not in the faith itself. One can have strong faith in a 2 legged chair made of paper or weak faith in a sturdy 4 legged chair maid of steel to hold one up, yet the weak faith would be more reasonable. My faith in an eternal sentient being as the origin of logic, rationality, life, sentience, and morality seem to be far more reasonable than faith in eternal, invariant, abstract laws given what atheistic worldviews say about the 'random,' 'chance,' 'material,' nature of the universe, not to mention that these worldviews still do not account for matter, life sentience, morality etc. etc.
>I'll give you one more: If I did believe in your god, I would not obey him,
This is entirely in line with Biblical teachings that atheists do not object to God for intellectual reasons, but for their hatred of Him.
With this admission, my survey of atheists on this topic is still at %100 agreement.
>(Incidentially, am I to take that argument as meaning that you refrain from sin merely because of fear of punishment, not of your own free will? Because I refrain from doing harm of my own free will.)
I try to refrain from sin because I love God, and am thankful for what the creator of the universe has done for little ol' me.
You on the other hand, if you believe in evolution, cannot even account for free will. According to evolution your thoughts are the mere by-products of the chemical reactions in your brain which you could no more control than a shaken can of pop could control its fizz when you open it. According to the evolutionistic worldview, you simply fizz "God does not exist," while I fizz "God exists." Free will is not in that equation. How do you account for the free will you claim you have?
>But your God does let you get away with sin. You don't think you'll be punished, do you?
No one 'gets away' with sin. All sin is punished. Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment I deserve for my sin. Still, the consequences of my sin is separation from my maker. Thankfully the sacrifice of Christ brings me back to Him.
I have conditional faith: if God exists then I will believe in Jesus.
fixed?
I would advise you not to see how that works for you.
>>391 why not? don't I give respect to God?
Not if you reduce His existence to a hypothetical.
> The validity of the argument is based on the 'reasonableness' of the faith, and not in the faith itself. One can have strong faith in a 2 legged chair made of paper or weak faith in a sturdy 4 legged chair maid of steel to hold one up, yet the weak faith would be more reasonable.
"Reasonableness" does not exist as a logical concept. If you want to make a logical argument, things are either true, false or undecidable. You are of course welcome to claim that your belief is reasonable, but that is not part of any logical argument.
> My faith in an eternal sentient being as the origin of logic, rationality, life, sentience, and morality seem to be far more reasonable than faith in eternal, invariant, abstract laws given what atheistic worldviews say about the 'random,' 'chance,' 'material,' nature of the universe, not to mention that these worldviews still do not account for matter, life sentience, morality etc. etc.
Saying that something happened by chance is "accounting" for it just as much as saying it happened because of a god. You seem to be treating "accounting" as a synonym for "explaining by a theory I approve of".
> This is entirely in line with Biblical teachings that atheists do not object to God for intellectual reasons, but for their hatred of Him.
That would make sense if I believed in god and hated him, and thus stopped. That never happened. I was taught that god exists, and that he was good. I looked at what was claimed, and noticed it just did not add up. Thus, I stopped believing in him. Now that I could look at the belief system from the outside, I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
But tell me, assuming he exists, why should I follow a god who tells his followers to kill their neighbours?
> I try to refrain from sin because I love God, and am thankful for what the creator of the universe has done for little ol' me.
Then what was that statement about creating a god that lets you get away with sin all about? Do you feel the need to sin?
> You on the other hand, if you believe in evolution, cannot even account for free will. According to evolution your thoughts are the mere by-products of the chemical reactions in your brain which you could no more control than a shaken can of pop could control its fizz when you open it. According to the evolutionistic worldview, you simply fizz "God does not exist," while I fizz "God exists." Free will is not in that equation. How do you account for the free will you claim you have?
I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question. I know this, though: We do not know yet whether the laws of physics are deterministic or not, so we can not say whether the processes in our brains are deterministic. Furthermore, I know that deterministic systems are not necessarily predictable.
And as I sit here, I sure feel like I have free will, and that is enough. I do not feel the need to "account" for it. But I look forward to learning more about this in the future, as human ingenuity works to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
>You are of course welcome to claim that your belief is reasonable, but that is not part of any logical argument.
Never said it was.
>Saying that something happened by chance is "accounting" for it just as much as saying it happened because of a god.
Sure, just like saying that a fully functional 747 'happened' by the chance results of a tornado ripping through a junkyard, makes as much sense as saying someone made it.
You, however, are not even saying that the laws of logic happened by chance, you (or whichever Anon Scientist) are making the equally ludicrous claim that they are eternal - a concept completely at odds with most atheistic worldviews.
>I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
Based on what stabdard of morality?
>But tell me, assuming he exists, why should I follow a god who tells his followers to kill their neighbours?
Which Bible were you reading?!? We are commanded to LOVE our neighbours.
>Do you feel the need to sin?
No, but my sinful fallen nature feels the desire to.
>I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question.
That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.
God also lists numerous "death-worthy" crimes, including:
Talking back to parents
Homosexuality
Worshipping other gods
Witchcraft
etc
Plus, orders the Israelites to kill all Amalakites (musta worked, there are no Amalakites anymore), allows them to keep slaves and buy and sell forgein slaves, among other things.
That and pages of War. Lots of war.
Yeah, it says love your neighbors, but if you read the thing literally, I think you'd have a mighty small list of "neighbors".
I'm not saying there's no god, but I doubt this is it...
>That and pages of War. Lots of war.
You are confusing the "Mosaic Covenant" with the "New Covenant" under Christ. I could explain "Covenant Theology" to you, but then you'd just find another reason to reject God.
Again though, by what standard of morality do you condemn God, and what is your evidence that God did not have a morally sufficient reason for what he commanded?
>Yeah, it says love your neighbors, but if you read the thing literally, I think you'd have a mighty small list of "neighbors"
You must have missed the parable of the Good Samaritan.
> Sure, just like saying that a fully functional 747 'happened' by the chance results of a tornado ripping through a junkyard, makes as much sense as saying someone made it.
Oh come on, that old chestnut? That quote shows nothing but the utter ignorance of the person repeating it. I'll pretend you didn't say that.
>> I could see that he was not a very good god, if he existed.
> Based on what stabdard of morality?
On my personal standard of morality, of course.
>> I have already told you that I treat that as an as yet unanswered question.
> That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.
Admitting that you do not have the answers to every question is equal to "faith" now? That's a definition I had not previously encountered.