Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[F1fan]

If we go with natural theology and simply define God is as whatever the answer is to a set of metaphysical questions and if we accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason as a premise, then it's trivial to construct a logical proof of the existence of God.

1. The universe exists.

The universe and the order that it displays (laws of physics etc.) exist. That's seemingly self-evident to both common sense and to science.

2. For every x, if x exists, then a sufficient reason for x exists.

This is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the idea that for any x, a reason exists at the very least for why that x is what it is and not something else. Science seemingly embraces it when it seeks explanations for things as varied as the existence and diversity of life on Earth, the origin of geological landforms or of the Solar System itself. Science isn't satisfied with being told 'That's just how things are'.

3. God is the universe's sufficient reason.

By definition, simply by describing how the word 'God' has often been used in natural theology.

No Gods are known to exist, nor is the category of supernatural phenomenon gods fall into. So this is not a credible option to explain anything.

Pick an option known to exist that can explain an effect.

 

[F1fan]

Again it hasn't happened. And if it did it still would be designed life.

Abiogenesis is the only option to explain how inorganic molecules became organic. There are no other factual options available to us.

Religious beliefs are not credible.

 

[Audie]

Really!?!????

Is that what you believe?

Unlike religion, it does not require
mere " belief".

 

[Audie]

Abiogenesis is the only option to explain how inorganic molecules became organic. There are no other factual options available to us.

Religious beliefs are not credible.

Disprove ToE, disprove deep time,
prove abio is impossible and I will be a new convert to Christianity!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ISIS is not a religion

If you are going to deny that the literal underpinnings of ISIS doctrine is religious, then I'm just gonna laugh in your face and tell you to inform yourself a bit.

Religion does not define or determine faith in God for humanity, and yet the only argument you can manage to come up with depend on ISIS.

No. There are many other examples. The only reason I chose ISIS is because I'ld reckon an extreme example we can both agree on would make you see the error in your reasoning.

But alas.............................................

That's a very weak argument, indeed. It's like claiming the klu klux klan as an argument against theism.

It's not an argument against theism.
Sounds like you didn't even understand the point being made.

It's a counterpoint to the immoral idea that people shouldn't comment on or otherwise criticize people's beliefs if those beliefs makes those people feel "happy and complete and productive" and what not.

It's absurdly myopic, and yet this is where your mind is focused every time you discuss the idea of faith in God

No. That would be you. You are clearly unable to have an honest discussion about this.
You have to resort to strawmen and dodging in order to avoid the obvious.

. As if political extremism in the name of a God is all that can ever come from faith in God.

Haven't said that at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This reminds me of a speaker that was so technical and philosophical, that it actually made no sense at all.

Maybe that was a problem on your part. That you didn't understand it. Or didn't want to undestand it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Very good comment. Feel good please.

Ta, I generally do. Apart from when I don't.

 

[firedragon]

Ta, I generally do. Apart from when I don't.

Very good. Keep it up.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Very good. Keep it up.

Actually, I try to keep it down.

 

[firedragon]

Actually, I try to keep it down.

K

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Belief in God is because of reason and logic.

But when it comes to evidence and facts, you will have to explain what they are to you and what kind of evidence would address God. The usual script on the internet is something like testable, repeatable evidence or something like that which is made by illogical atheists on the internet. Rather, why not show an example of evidence and facts and how you determine something.

That's a good question. It's easy to throw around terms like critical thinking, skepticism, scientific method, etc., but harder to define the process I use in real time. I'll have to get back to you with this one

 

[Kenny]

Maybe that was a problem on your part. That you didn't understand it. Or didn't want to undestand it.

Maybe if you took away your bias and were a little more detailed, we could discuss it?

 

[rational experiences]

If a human said a deity did it. Then the deity has to still exist.

So you would ask how when created creation is Multi varied fused bodies. Gases lots of. Lots of changes still occurring as cosmic observations.

A human hence can ask a human says I own dominion as consciousness which I've proved by my knowledge.

To a human they are hence the owner of created creation by conscious advice.

Yet not by body advice.

As our bodies die decompose.

A theme was produced. If a creator began then ended then it had to be my own self by consciousness.

So a Microbe theme was taught. Body ends bacterias.

Yet consciousness ends when brain function desists. A different topic.

So the topic shifts does a conscious end just because a body dies?

Why ask.

Are you a thinker?

Yes.

Is thinking just thinking?

Yes.

Science says the topic to think upon depicts intellect.

How did you know when a human conscious human is nowhere else?

I don't want to be depicted as non intelligence says a theist. I won't pick a topic where I can't express information.

Reality ego.

Okay you can pick a topic yet not know,?

Yes says thinking.

The difference to a human who says faith of spirit is real as compared to your ego.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe if you took away your bias and were a little more detailed, we could discuss it?

I'm not sure what is confusing you about what I said.

None of which resonates to me as particularly "technical" or "philosophical", let alone "too much" of either.

What I said instead is pretty straightforward. I made 2 main points:

1. Beliefs inform actions and since atheism is not a belief but a DISbelief of a specific thing, it does not inform actions.

2. a sense of morality / ethics is inherent to the human condition and does not need to be "given" to us. As a secondary point, I said that even if a morality is given to us, we would have to necessarily use some other source of ethics in order to make a value judgement about that "given morality", to recognize it as "good" or "bad".

 

[Audie]

That's a good question. It's easy to throw around terms like critical thinking, skepticism, scientific method, etc., but harder to define the process I use in real time. I'll have to get back to you with this one

Id like how reason and logic applied to facts
arrives at "god".

 

[cladking]

None of this explains how intuition is reliable as a means to discern truth. If reasoning is available because you have facts then that is the only reliable option.

I didn't say it is reliable and it certainly isn't for everyone.

I said it is far more widely applicable and will now add that it is often the only way to experiment design and often the route that was taken to good hypothesis.

Intuition and imagination can sometimes be almost as valuable as the "truth".

 

[cladking]

I'm not sure why someone who acknowledges that "God" is just a relatable face put onto nature would be a theist.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Ancient people put a relatable face on nature and we mistakenly believe they called this face "gods". But this was actual reality as it was understood to them and they called it "natures" (neters), not "gods".

I do not see the face of God nor any of His parts. At best I can see His handiwork in between the glimpses of the reality I can discern.

 

[cladking]

Did you want to rebut the claim made? You haven't. Nothing you wrote makes my comment untrue or less true.

You seem to think I am saying that "science" makes people think wrongly.

Hardly.

Many of the best thinkers today are scientists. It's a shame that science has become so broad that there are so many specialties and some scientists become wholly caught up in them instead of more general thinking but it hardly matters except to fields which are held in such low esteem to believers in science such as philosophy and applied science.

The problem isn't science nor the way it makes one think. Any kind of rationality no matter the premises might produce something beneficial to the individual or the race. Obviously things based on faulty assumptions is far less like to be productive. Nothing will ever come out of Egyptology in all probability, for instance, because they have run so far afield.

The problem is that most people who adopt science do so as a belief system because they do not understand its nature. More importantly than not understanding its nature is they don't even have a working definition for "consciousness" so it's impossible to see how language affects it. They don't know they choose their beliefs and then live them.

 

[cladking]

"Prejudice and bias, which are preferences for one thing over another, are good things if they're rational, that is, derived empirically"

You said this in a context that suggests you can only be correct. Indeed, it is virtually the definition of how one creates a circular argument; bias. Perhaps you didn't do this in this specific instance but bias is hitching the cart before the horse. It's really what the word means and that goes several times over in context.

If you have a "bias" to seeing every single thing only in terms of belief (in science rationality etc) then how do you explain anomalies. These cause some people sop much grief that they can't even see them. Their minds pencil whip them out of existence. The chances of such thinking being the origin of an anomaly are very low because the more strongly you believe the less probable you'll be the first to observe an anomaly.

I shouldn't need to point this out but almost human progress in almost every single field including theology and cosmology come from the identification and study of anomalies.

"Bias" hides reality and dictates the circular course of the cart before the horse.

 

[cladking]

No Gods are known to exist, nor is the category of supernatural phenomenon gods fall into.

"Supernatural" is just a word and would have an infinite number of meanings. It is an abstraction. Taxonomies and abstractions are not real and just a way to organize our models and remember details.

If God exists I seriously doubt He is beholden to exist in any specific nomenclature.