Is it that incomprehensible to some that we theists may come to theism by way of evidence & reason?

[Erebus]

Evidence becomes a fairly strange concept to a nature worshipper. My usual response if asked for evidence for my gods would be something along the lines of, "Go outside." As such, I'll focus more on reason.

We all engage our reasoning abilities on a daily basis, often without realising that's what we're doing. We may or may not be well versed in formal logical arguments but I would suggest that this encompasses only a part of what it means to use reason. A theist who arrives at their stance because of, for example, their personal experiences, is engaging their reasoning skills in at least some capacity. You can certainly argue that they may or may not be using the full suite of their reasoning skills and it's entirely possible that they have blundered into some logical errors along the way. To claim that "No theist arrives at their position through reason" though is one hell of a statement and not one that I can agree with.

The flip side to this of course is that we are also irrational, emotional and impulsive creatures. That applies to both theists and atheists. Just as people arrive at their positions in part due to the application of their reasoning skills, so too do they arrive at those positions because of their emotional and irrational side. It seems to be very trendy on this forum to try and present yourself as a Vulcan character who never veers from the true path of reason and logic. I maintain that this will only be true in the rare case of somebody with severe Schizoid personality disorder.

So yes, both theists and atheists use reason to varying degrees and with varying amounts of success. Both atheists and theists are also irrational at times and there's actually nothing wrong with that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So how would you then address the existence of logically valid/plausible theistic arguments not based in aesthetic preference?

"Logically valid/plausible theistic arguments not based in aesthetic preference" exist? This is news to me.

 

[idav]

I'm trying to stay open to the idea, but I haven't found a theist yet who I can say this is true for.

Even if we got to glimpse the Big Bang singularity itself atheists would still say it's not god, while theists might consider that some sort of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even if we got to glimpse the Big Bang singularity itself atheists would still say it's not god, while theists might consider that some sort of evidence.

Which theists say that the Big Bang is God?

The Big Bang could be considered evidence for God... in the sense that we can imagine arguments for God that include something about the Big Bang as a premise. "Evidence for God" is a pretty easy bar to clear, but it doesn't establish that God exists.

I haven't seen a theist yet who has been able to use reason and evidence to get from the Big Bang to "... therefore God exists."

 

[idav]

Which theists say that the Big Bang is God?

The Big Bang could be considered evidence for God... in the sense that we can imagine arguments for God that include something about the Big Bang as a premise. "Evidence for God" is a pretty easy bar to clear, but it doesn't establish that God exists.

I haven't seen a theist yet who has been able to use reason and evidence to get from the Big Bang to "... therefore God exists."

Not the Big Bang, the Big Bang singularity but of course we don't exactly have evidence of that, not like we can see the singularity. So perhaps god is still a bit difficult to find, evidence of god needn't be an issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not the Big Bang, the Big Bang singularity but of course we don't exactly have evidence of that, not like we can see the singularity.

The Big Bang and our evidence for it is also evidence of the Big Bang singularity.

So perhaps god is still a bit difficult to find, evidence of god needn't be an issue.

"Needn't be an issue" in what sense?

The lack of evidence for God isn't an issue for me as an atheist, but I think it would be an issue for any theist concerned with the rationality of their beliefs.

And if God hasn't been found yet, then this means that every god-based religion's claims are completely unjustified, regardless of whether someone else shows layer that they turned out to be coincidentally correct.

A stopped clock may be right twice a day, but it's never a reliable way of keeping time.

 

[idav]

The Big Bang and our evidence for it is also evidence of the Big Bang singularity.


"Needn't be an issue" in what sense?

The lack of evidence for God isn't an issue for me as an atheist, but I think it would be an issue for any theist concerned with the rationality of their beliefs.

And if God hasn't been found yet, then this means that every god-based religion's claims are completely unjustified, regardless of whether someone else shows layer that they turned out to be coincidentally correct.

A stopped clock may be right twice a day, but it's never a reliable way of keeping time.

What do you think science is finding when they find ways to harness the power of the sun and find light could be approaching timelessness. It's not science job to make that label but far as I can tell science is finding the improbable even in QM.

 

[blü 2]

rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were [...] just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means.

All the theists I know are rational people. And none of them attempts a defense of their beliefs ─ what they say, in various ways, is, 'Works for me!', and then smile.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?

No.

If God is real ─ has objective existence ─ then [he]'s capable of being described such that if we were to encounter a candidate, anyone could determine whether it was God or not, But there's no such description, no such definition.

And if God is real then [he] has objective existence, and thus [his] existence can be demonstrated in reality (rather than somehow implied). But there's no such demonstration.

But if God is imaginary, everything falls into place and there's no problem.

Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both?

Well, there are other reasons for believing, in particular being acculturated to religion from a young age, but also getting a sense of enjoyment or direction from being a group, or perhaps even having a strange psychological experience in the course of religion which seems like evidence,

Those are suitably human reasons, and they're obviously sufficient for many people. They're emotional, so reason doesn't really come into it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you think science is finding when they find ways to harness the power of the sun and find light could be approaching timelessness. It's not science job to make that label but far as I can tell science is finding the improbable even in QM.

There are too many assumptions in your post for me to want to unpack them in order to respond.

I also notice that you skipped my question: "needn't be an issue" in what sense?

 

[idav]

There are too many assumptions in your post for me to want to unpack them in order to respond.

I also notice that you skipped my question: "needn't be an issue" in what sense?

Let's look at my first claim, we harness the power of the sun, do you deny that?

 

[1137]

"Logically valid/plausible theistic arguments not based in aesthetic preference" exist? This is news to me.

Of course they do, just like evidence for evolution exist, but those who fundamentaly reject either prefer to pretend no such evidence exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course they do, just like evidence for evolution exist, but those who fundamentaly reject either prefer to pretend no such evidence exists.

Great! Care to point me to any of these logically valid and plausible arguments?

 

[1137]

Great! Care to point me to any of these logically valid and plausible arguments?

Considering how well known and common some of them are, it's clear you've already heard them and prefer to pretend they don't exist.

 

[YmirGF]

Considering how well known and common some of them are, it's clear you've already heard them and prefer to pretend they don't exist.

You could simply provide a couple of links and say, "Take that, infidel dog!"
Just trying to be helpful, God knows, you need it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Considering how well known and common some of them are, it's clear you've already heard them and prefer to pretend they don't exist.

I know plenty of well-known arguments for God that fail logically. Do you mean one of those?

Tell you what: you tell me some of the arguments you have in mind and if it's one of the irrational ones that has been hashed to death, I'll tell you what's wrong with it.

 

[1137]

Shame, I thought RF might still comprehend things like validity and soundness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Shame, I thought RF might still comprehend things like validity and soundness.

We do; that's your problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Shame, I thought RF might still comprehend things like validity and soundness.

BTW: you should know that I'm taking your dancing around as a sign that you don't have a straight answer for me.

 

[1137]

I just don't see why I need to pretend you've never heard of arguments like the cosmological or fine tuning argument (neither of which I really accept). If you have and think they are invalid, you don't understand what validity is, and like don't understand the difference between plausible, sound, and unsound. Tell me, are the following valid/invalid and/or sound/unsound/possibly sound?

1. All men are immortal.

2. Socrates was a man.

3. Therefore Socrates was immortal.

What about this one?

1. If the universe were slightly different life as we know it couldn't exist.

2. Life exists.

3. So the universe exists in a very specific form.

4. Such a specific form requires intelligent thought.

5. Therefore there is intelligent thought behind the universe.

And one more:

1. Humans are bipedal.

2. My dog is quadrupedal.

3. Therefore my dog is not a human.

 

[blü 2]

Shame, I thought RF might still comprehend things like validity and soundness.

But that cuts both ways, surely?

How do you reply to my #48?