Reason vs. Faith...

[Dr.Who]

It does not seem logical that God would implant a "...longing to search for Him...", without some mechanism that would tell us when we have truely found him. The those who worship all other gods seem to have gotten the wrong message or they would not still be worshiping the sun, et. al.

It would seem more likely that belief in God, gods, etc., is an easy answer for people who cannot comprehend scientific reality.

Is it not likely that a strong belief in deities comes from sociological influences that constantly reinforce that erroneous belief? Christians going to church, Muslims praying many times a day? Constant reinforcement.

And why is the intuition (longing to search for Him) to look for God be manifest in me, and many others, as an intuitive feeling the God does not exist? Why have we no, "longing to search for Him..."?

In addition to the "longing to search" there is the testimony of creation and of the prophets to confirm what one sees as actually being God. What of the people who search and find contradictory god's? Or who express that they have no longing? The bible says that the testimony of creation is evident to all and those who do not see it are not merely mistaken - they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. They could have seen and believed but their own desire to believe otherwise, because it is more palatable to reject a God that expects you to live an upright life, or to accept a false god who reinforces ones political beliefs (etc.) tickles their ears. Even within Christianity which I believe to be the best choice there are people who distort who God is to make him more palatable or to be tickled.

So if we compare all the people of one continent who tend to believe one thing and all the people of another who tend believe another contradictory thing we have to conclude that one whole set of people is wrong. Were'nt they just led astray by a strong cultural influence. The bible also says that no one is tempted beyond their ability to resist. So the noble savage living far away from these cultural influences actually has an advantage rather than it being harder for him to hear about God. But no matter how hard it is still all are without excuse for not finding the one God. For those who we might theorize were truly led astray, so they are without blame, they will not be judged harshly for it.

Anyway you can look inside yourself and evaluate whatever you find there for yourself. If you do not like what I say I won't try to make you believe it. I paraphrased the bible and you don't have to accept that either. it just says what it says and it is up to you what to make of it. God has given everyone some degree of reason to reject the false and move toward the true. Anyone who is honest with themselves will be led by God more and more toward truth.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is why I am an atheist. Belief in God is irrational. Belief in the Christian God is also irrational. There is just as much "evidence" that Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny exist...proved by the presents under the tree and the baskets of candy. Actually the presents and the candy constitute more proof than existence of God.

Just as you posted that you believed in the sun god and then later claimed to be an athiest (proving that you do not believe the very things you say) you do not actually believe that there is more evidence for Santa Clause as for God. In any case I find it hard to believe that you could be that ridiculous.

No one has actually put forth their testimony in earnestness for the existence of Santa. He is a fun story through and through. Yet many people have testified that they have had experiences with God. And they are earnest in what they say. You may not believe them but what they say is evidence.

Do you claim that your athiesm is rational? Is it rational to positively assert that there is no God when He could be just around the next corner. There is certainly no God where you have looked but you have not looked everywhere yet. It would be rational to say that you have not seen God. It would be rational to say that you have not been convinced by the evidence. It would be rational to say why you find the evidence to be unconvincing so that if you are mistaken others could correct you. It would even be rational to keep an open mind so that someday when you might have an experience with God you won't be closed to it or to evaluate the evidence.

 

[SW85]

That is why I am an atheist. Belief in God is irrational. Belief in the Christian God is also irrational. There is just as much "evidence" that Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny exist...proved by the presents under the tree and the baskets of candy. Actually the presents and the candy constitute more proof than existence of God.

And no, faith and reason cannot peacefully co-exist. Atheists are frequently subject to discrimination. It seems that persons of faith feel threatened by free-thinkers and rationalize a multitude of ways to discriminate.

For instance, the issue of prayer in schools. It is frequently heard: "...they have kicked God out of School" or,"...children cannot pray in school...", when in reality, a person can pray silently at anytime, anywhere if they so wish. The motive then, for the pro-school prayer people is to have everyone pray, whether so inclined or not.

It's useless trying to talk about this with you when you haven't even done the basic philosophical groundwork necessary to do so.

You're conflating reason with evidence, which numinus has already pointed out is unnecessary for faith in God as there are plenty of logical proofs of His existence; again, see the cosmological argument. Moreover there's reason to question that conflation, anyway, since by its nature it assumes that "reason" amounts to nothing more than the processing of immediate sensory impulses.

And I shouldn't have to point out that if "evidence" is your sole standard, your position is even less tenable than that of the faithful, as you are positing the definite absence of a God on the basis of insufficient evidence to the contrary.

 

[dahermit]

It's useless trying to talk about this with you when you haven't even done the basic philosophical groundwork necessary to do so.

You're conflating reason with evidence, which numinus has already pointed out is unnecessary for faith in God as there are plenty of logical proofs of His existence; again, see the cosmological argument. Moreover there's reason to question that conflation, anyway, since by its nature it assumes that "reason" amounts to nothing more than the processing of immediate sensory impulses.

And I shouldn't have to point out that if "evidence" is your sole standard, your position is even less tenable than that of the faithful, as you are positing the definite absence of a God on the basis of insufficient evidence to the contrary.

"Best" evidence is no deity. Most (all) Christians I have known have not done the philosophical groundwork. Most have never questioned the existence of that which they have come to believe. When asked to describe the process by which they came to believe in god, they cannot. Nevertheless, they seem content just to accept.

If I were you, I would not use numinus as an example of a believer, see his other posts on this network.

 

[dahermit]

Just as you posted that you believed in the sun god and then later claimed to be an athiest (proving that you do not believe the very things you say) you do not actually believe that there is more evidence for Santa Clause as for God. In any case I find it hard to believe that you could be that ridiculous.

No one has actually put forth their testimony in earnestness for the existence of Santa. He is a fun story through and through. Yet many people have testified that they have had experiences with God. And they are earnest in what they say. You may not believe them but what they say is evidence.

Do you claim that your athiesm is rational? Is it rational to positively assert that there is no God when He could be just around the next corner. There is certainly no God where you have looked but you have not looked everywhere yet. It would be rational to say that you have not seen God. It would be rational to say that you have not been convinced by the evidence. It would be rational to say why you find the evidence to be unconvincing so that if you are mistaken others could correct you. It would even be rational to keep an open mind so that someday when you might have an experience with God you won't be closed to it or to evaluate the evidence.

Belief in the sun god was being facetious.

Santa, Easter Bunny...not best examples. Alien visitation, sightings, better example. " Yet many people have testified that they have had experiences with Aliens. And they are earnest in what they say. You may not believe them but what they say is evidence." God-Aliens, no difference. Many believers. Such "testimony" is not evidence.

My mind is just as "open" as religious zealots.

 

[dahermit]

God has given everyone some degree of reason to reject the false and move toward the true.

Prove it.

Anyone who is honest with themselves will be led by God more and more toward truth.

Oh, brother! Emotional drivel.

 

[SW85]

"Best" evidence is no deity. Most (all) Christians I have known have not done the philosophical groundwork. Most have never questioned the existence of that which they have come to believe. When asked to describe the process by which they came to believe in god, they cannot. Nevertheless, they seem content just to accept.

Fine, but I'm not arguing with "all" Christians, I'm arguing with you. They, at least, have a religious tradition based on that philosophy. You have, literally, nothing except your senses ("I've never seen God"). I could extract as much information from a well-trained ape.

Your post went nowhere in addressing the issues I raised above: that you are conflating reason with the presence of physical evidence, and that your position, by the standard you've set for yourself, is intellectually untenable.

If I were you, I would not use numinus as an example of a believer, see his other posts on this network.

I didn't hold up numinus "as a believer," I pointed out that he provided logical proofs of God elsewhere, like the cosmological argument. Which he has.

 

[dahermit]

Fine, but I'm not arguing with "all" Christians, I'm arguing with you. They, at least, have a religious tradition based on that philosophy. You have, literally, nothing except your senses ("I've never seen God").

I have never used that argument. You are creating a "straw man" which is then easily knocked down.
I have studied the Bible all my adolescent years while attending a Baptist church. After considerable reflection, I rejected it as an infallible, inspired word of God. I have studied philosophy and again, after careful consideration, concluded no evidence to support a creation by a deity.

I could extract as much information from a well-trained ape.

"Love your neighbor as well as you love yourself.."? "...judge not, least you be judged..."? In all, a very Christ-like answer that is sure to lend credence to your personal witness and testimony. Is that how a Christian is supposed to be a "...fisher of men..."?

 

[dahermit]

A question for believers: Assuming there was a God, and he had lived for billions of years, but had died, what evidence would there likely be of his passing?

Do not use a Biblical quotation as an argument like: "...God is forever...", just likely differences in the world.

 

[SW85]

I have never used that argument. You are creating a "straw man" which is then easily knocked down.

Let me explain myself painfully slowly, since you're obviously having difficulty following me:

I have not argued that there is "evidence" (i.e., a proof of a physical phenomenon) to support the existence of God. "Evidence" is stuff you can see, hear, taste, smell, etc. It is sensory information. The existence or absence of sensory information in no way involves the exercise of reason. This is why I said any well-trained ape could relay that kind of information to me (the exercise of reason being the characteristic activity of humans alone).

There are plenty of logical proofs for God (the cosmological argument, for starters). Again, it's up to an individual and his capacity for reason to extrapolate the truth from them.

And once again: you cannot disprove the existence of God, either. If "evidence" is your golden standard, the logically tenable position is agnosticism (or cautious faith, such as what I exercise).

BTW, ignoring momentarily that you obviously don't know what a straw man is, it's immensely lame to just say "you've exercised THIS kind of fallacy." If a fallacy is questionable, argue against it on the basis of its merits. Don't just pin a name to it.

I have studied the Bible all my adolescent years while attending a Baptist church. After considerable reflection, I rejected it as an infallible, inspired word of God. I have studied philosophy and again, after careful consideration, concluded no evidence to support a creation by a deity.

If you have combed classical literature and the Bible looking for "evidence" of God, you have sorely missed the point.

"Love your neighbor as well as you love yourself.."? "...judge not, least you be judged..."? In all, a very Christ-like answer that is sure to lend credence to your personal witness and testimony. Is that how a Christian is supposed to be a "...fisher of men..."?

I'm not and never said I was a Christian. I said I believe in God. (Now who's committing the logical fallacy?)

 

[dahermit]

Let me explain myself painfully slowly, since you're obviously having difficulty following me:

I have not argued that there is "evidence" (i.e., a proof of a physical phenomenon) to support the existence of God. "Evidence" is stuff you can see, hear, taste, smell, etc. It is sensory information. The existence or absence of sensory information in no way involves the exercise of reason. This is why I said any well-trained ape could relay that kind of information to me (the exercise of reason being the characteristic activity of humans alone).

There are plenty of logical proofs for God (the cosmological argument, for starters). Again, it's up to an individual and his capacity for reason to extrapolate the truth from them.

And once again: you cannot disprove the existence of God, either. If "evidence" is your golden standard, the logically tenable position is agnosticism (or cautious faith, such as what I exercise).

BTW, ignoring momentarily that you obviously don't know what a straw man is, it's immensely lame to just say "you've exercised THIS kind of fallacy." If a fallacy is questionable, argue against it on the basis of its merits. Don't just pin a name to it.

"Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. " This is what I said you did; this is what you did.

"The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
The Cosmological Argument takes several forms, but is basically represented below.

"Cosmological Argument
Things exist.
It is possible for those things to not exist.
Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
The uncaused cause must be God.
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion, but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.


Strengths of the argument
The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.


Weaknesses of the argument
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.

Also, by definition, God is uncaused."

This is an argument that can be interpreted as to conclude either condition (god or no god), is not "proof."

Nevertheless, I concede:
You are right, I am wrong. You are smart, I am dumb.
Does it make you happy?

 

[Dr.Who]

Belief in the sun god was being facetious.

Santa, Easter Bunny...not best examples. Alien visitation, sightings, better example. " Yet many people have testified that they have had experiences with Aliens. And they are earnest in what they say. You may not believe them but what they say is evidence." God-Aliens, no difference. Many believers. Such "testimony" is not evidence.

My mind is just as "open" as religious zealots.

All testimony is evidence. The only question is how good the evidence is. Coming from a loony toon I would be willing to dismiss it. The only catch is that we can't call them a loony toon for believeing in aliens and then say because they are loony there is no good evidence for aleins; that would be circular. We need to show that they are loony for other reasons or accept that they are credible witnesses. If they are credible then we still have to decide if they are right.

 

[Dr.Who]

Prove it.

You don't have to believe it and it is no skin off my teeth if you don't.

But is it true? Let's see.

I said:

"God has given everyone some degree of reason to reject the false and move toward the true."

Everyone except a vegetable has some degree of reason, though one might say that the degree of reason that a vegetable has is just zero. Reason is used to evaluate truth and generally works. So the only part of that which is in question is whether or not reason is God given. If we were talking about the God of Spinoza then we would just say that since reason had to come from somewhere and since our definition of God is so open and loose that we might as well call that source of reason God. But I don't believe in the God of Spinoza. I believe in the God of the Bible and I come by my belief which I stated above through reading the Bible. My trust in the book is based inpart on it being trustworthy and in part by faith. So no I can't prove that statement completely. But I am not forcing it down your throat. I am just stating what I believe just like everyone else here does.

Oh, brother! Emotional drivel.

The next statement was:


"Anyone who is honest with themselves will be led by God more and more toward truth."

If anything that statement is too cold and unemotional.

but self-disonesty would generally bias people and cause them to miss truth. Again the only part of that which I think is debateable is whether it is God who is doing the leading.

You react pretty strongly against statements that are completely self evidence except for the claim that God is involved. Could you be biased?

 

[Dr.Who]

A question for believers: Assuming there was a God, and he had lived for billions of years, but had died, what evidence would there likely be of his passing?

Do not use a Biblical quotation as an argument like: "...God is forever...", just likely differences in the world.

That would depend on how involved in the world he is.

If he is not involved at all we would not notice his passing. If he were very involved we would notice right away. And if his involvement were inbetween then we would notice at some point.

It is my belief that God is responsible for holding the universe together. All the forces of nature were created by him and continue as a result of his involvement. If God died the universe would end.

What causes gravity to operate as a force of nature? Have you seen anything with your senses to explain it?

 

[SW85]

"Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. " This is what I said you did; this is what you did.

Whatever. I'd ask you to point out how what I said was a misrepresentation of what you said (you demanded evidence; evidence is proof of a physical phenomenonl ergo evidence is a physical thing; anything with senses can detect the presence or absence of physical things; apes have senses; ergo apes could relay this information to me) but it is so far from the original point I won't legitimize your efforts to change the subject any further.

Weaknesses of the argument
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.

Also, by definition, God is uncaused."

This is an argument that can be interpreted as to conclude either condition (god or no god), is not "proof."

First, the cosmological argument does not say that all things that exist must have a cause to exist. It says that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. If God has always existed, this isn't a problem.

If God, by contrast, had a cause (did not always exist), then he is just another link in the infinite causal chain, the conditions of which can never be satisfied. But theology doesn't claim this, to the best of my knowledge.

Nevertheless, I concede:
You are right, I am wrong. You are smart, I am dumb.
Does it make you happy?

Quite.