[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Archaeopteryx]

The only difference between my logic and your logic is that your logic can't explain existence whereas my logic can.

You keep saying that, but you always stop short of actually showing it to be true.

So logically anyone viewing our conversation who has no pre-conceived notions about reality and existence would believe my logic because it actually explains things,

No, not necessarily, since you haven't actually shown that your logic explains anything.

 

[Chriliman]

No, not necessarily, since you haven't actually shown that your logic explains anything.

First of all, isn't it true that your logic can't explain existence? Your logic is to wait for physical evidence that proves the reason for existence, but you forget that science will never be able to provide physical evidence for the reason for existence. All science can do at this point is postulate unprovable theories. So logically the theory that makes the most sense should be the theory we all believe in, do you agree?. Or are you going to continue denying the concept that makes the most sense in hopes of one that makes even more sense? Are you fine with denying the most sensible concept until the day you die?

Not only does the concept of an infinite timeless God make sense, the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence. If an infinite timeless God exists then logically existence is all you'll ever experience and so far this makes sense because its true that existence is all that you've ever experienced.

Sure science can come up with more theories about existence, but I'm going to continue believing the one that makes the most sense and has been around since forever, simply because this is reasonable for me to do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not only does the concept of an infinite timeless God make sense, the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence. If an infinite timeless God exists then logically existence is all you'll ever experience and so far this makes sense because its true that existence is all that you've ever experienced.

How do you know the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence (without using the circular argument that the concept came from God) ?

If an infinite and timeless God makes sense, then an infinite and timeless universe makes more sense - Ockham's Razor applies. And if, for some reason, you still need a God concept, there's the Spinozan God-as-universe, which Einstein favoured.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First of all, isn't it true that your logic can't explain existence? Your logic is to wait for physical evidence that proves the reason for existence, but you forget that science will never be able to provide physical evidence for the reason for existence. All science can do at this point is postulate unprovable theories. So logically the theory that makes the most sense should be the theory we all believe in, do you agree?.

You're reasoning makes no sense. I'm sorry to say but I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here.

Or are you going to continue denying the concept that makes the most sense in hopes of one that makes even more sense? Are you fine with denying the most sensible concept until the day you die?

My problem is that you haven't actually shown your concept "makes the most sense." You've claimed that repeatedly, but you haven't actually shown anything.

Not only does the concept of an infinite timeless God make sense,

Again, you've asserted this repeatedly, but you haven't actually shown that it does make sense of anything.

Sure science can come up with more theories about existence, but I'm going to continue believing the one that makes the most sense and has been around since forever, simply because this is reasonable for me to do.

How is it reasonable? Again, you've just repeated the claim. You do understand that you need to support your assertions?

 

[Chriliman]

How do you know the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence (without using the circular argument that the concept came from God) ?

If an infinite and timeless God makes sense, then an infinite and timeless universe makes more sense - Ockham's Razor applies. And if, for some reason, you still need a God concept, there's the Spinozan God-as-universe, which Einstein favoured.

There is this book that was written a long time ago that explains this concept of God being infinite and timeless, the evidence is the following from the book.

Proof that God is timeless:

2 Peter 3:8
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Proof that God is infinite:

Isaiah 40:28
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, He will not grow tired or weary and his understanding no one can fathom."

So this book that was written thousands of years ago can explain our existence better that modern science can and you're trying to tell me I should not believe this book is truth?

edited to emphasize not

 

[ToddNotTodd]

First of all, isn't it true that your logic can't explain existence?

This is word salad. Logic doesn't explain a particular thing. Logic is a set of tools. Theories offer explanation.

Your logic is to wait for physical evidence that proves the reason for existence, but you forget that science will never be able to provide physical evidence for the reason for existence. All science can do at this point is postulate unprovable theories. So logically the theory that makes the most sense should be the theory we all believe in, do you agree?.

It's not necessary to believe in any creation story, natural or supernatural. The only intellectually honest position is that we don't know.

Not only does the concept of an infinite timeless God make sense, the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence.

Soooo, you'll believe any story that has been around a long time? You realize that's a logical fallacy, right?

If an infinite timeless God exists then logically existence is all you'll ever experience and so far this makes sense because its true that existence is all that you've ever experienced.

Existence is what we experience whether or not a god exists. What on earth would we experience other than existence?

Sure science can come up with more theories about existence, but I'm going to continue believing the one that makes the most sense and has been around since forever, simply because this is reasonable for me to do.

You believe the one that makes sense to you. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is this book that was written a long time ago that explains this concept of God being infinite and timeless, the evidence is the following from the book.

Proof that God is timeless:

2 Peter 3:8
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Proof that God is infinite:

Isaiah 40:28
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, He will not grow tired or weary and his understanding no one can fathom."

No, that's the claim, not the proof. Specifically, it's the source of the claim.

So this book that was written thousands of years ago can explain our existence better that modern science can and you're trying to tell me I should believe this book is truth?

You haven't shown that it explains anything; you've merely asserted that it does.

 

[Chriliman]

This is word salad. Logic doesn't explain a particular thing. Logic is a set of tools. Theories offer explanation.

We use logic to make sense of things. If not then what good is logic?

It's not necessary to believe in any creation story, natural or supernatural. The only intellectually honest position is that we don't know.

I agree humans do not yet know the complete truth about existence. The question is how long are you willing to not know?

Soooo, you'll believe any story that has been around a long time? You realize that's a logical fallacy, right?

Not any story, but rather the true story.

Existence is what we experience whether or not a god exists. What on earth would we experience other than existence?

Well there's two states of existence. There's good existence which would include pleasure, joy, sleep, happiness, rest and whatever else we humans consider good. Then there's bad existence, which basically involves anything emotionally or physically painful. I simply do not believe we've created these two states of existence, these states of existence came from beyond our ability to create them. If they don't come from our ability to create them then logically they've come from something with greater ability than ourselves.

You believe the one that makes sense to you. It makes no sense to me.

If a concept that made perfect sense of our existence was presented to you, would you believe it? Or would you wait for physical evidence that proves the concept is true?

 

[Chriliman]

No, that's the claim, not the proof. Specifically, it's the source of the claim.

So every concept and theory science comes up with to explain existence are just claims as well, not proof, right? They're claiming a multi-verse could exist, but they have no proof, so its up to you to believe them.

You haven't shown that it explains anything; you've merely asserted that it does.

Do you assert that God does not exist? If not then it must mean you actually don't know. All I'm saying is give it time and you will know.

I think we can end it there. I've explained my beliefs to the best of my finite minds ability. So long, until I learn more.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

We use logic to make sense of things. If not then what good is logic?

We use logic to evaluate the reasoning behind theories. We don't use it to explain things, as you mentioned earlier.

I agree humans do not yet know the complete truth about existence. The question is how long are you willing to not know?

If you're talking about where the universe came from, I don't particularly care if I die without knowing for sure.

Not any story, but rather the true story.

But that's not what you said. You indicated that you believed in the "concept of god" because it's an story that's been around for a long time. Which is a terrible reason to believe anything.

Well there's two states of existence. There's good existence which would include pleasure, joy, sleep, happiness, rest and whatever else we humans consider good. Then there's bad existence, which basically involves anything emotionally or physically painful. I simply do not believe we've created these two states of existence, these states of existence came from beyond our ability to create them. If they don't come from our ability to create them then logically they've come from something with greater ability than ourselves.

Your "two states of existence" is your own arbitrary concept. To me existence is existence. One "state", if you must use that term.

If a concept that made perfect sense of our existence was presented to you, would you believe it? Or would you wait for physical evidence that proves the concept is true?

This seems to be more word salad. If you're talking about the beginning of the universe, then physical evidence is the only thing that would reasonably support whatever a theory might be.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So this book that was written thousands of years ago can explain our existence better that modern science can and you're trying to tell me I should believe this book is truth?

Er, no. Was that a trick question?

A lot of books have been written, many even older; so what? The book you quote contains unsupported claims not proofs, and explains our existence no better than any of the hundreds of creation myths out there, many of which are older (does age make it more likely to be true?). The last thing I'd try to tell you is that you should believe it is truth.

No, I asked a question that you didn't answer, and suggested a more logical - by the criteria of your own argument - alternative to the God concept you proposed.

 

[Chriliman]

We use logic to evaluate the reasoning behind theories. We don't use it to explain things, as you mentioned earlier.

Right, I've used logic to evaluate your reasoning and I have determined that your reasoning does not make sense.

If you're talking about where the universe came from, I don't particularly care if I die without knowing for sure.

And if everyone took your view of not really caring, would we ever actually figure it out? I'm glad some people do care so that someday we can figure it out. This is called hope.

But that's not what you said. You indicated that you believed in the "concept of god" because it's an story that's been around for a long time. Which is a terrible reason to believe anything.

I believe the concept of God because it makes more sense than any other concept presented to me.

Your "two states of existence" is your own arbitrary concept. To me existence is existence. One "state", if you must use that term.

Again, I'm just trying to be as reasonable as possible when explaining my beliefs.

This seems to be more word salad. If you're talking about the beginning of the universe, then physical evidence is the only thing that would reasonably support whatever a theory might be.

So where's the physical evidence to support the mutli-verse idea or the imaginary time idea? There is no physical evidence, the only evidence we have is that the mathematics point to these possible concepts, but the mathematics itself is not physical proof of the concept it only points to the concept as being possible.

The Bible is not physical evidence of God, it only points to the truth that God inspired it. Acceptance of this truth is where you begin to find understanding.

 

[anonymous person]

That answers the second question mostly, but what about the first?

It is true. You will not convince me that Christ does not abide in me and I in Him.

But be not downcast by this. You can still make an attempt at persuading me that the Bible is a load of garbage or that Jesus was not God incarnate or that the universe has always existed.

I'm always open to these sorts of discussions so have at it.

 

[anonymous person]

How do you leap from an empty tomb to a bodily resurrection and subsequent heavenly ascension? And please don't bother telling me to "google it."

I don't leap. I step.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Right, I've used logic to evaluate your reasoning and I have determined that your reasoning does not make sense.

What reasoning is that?

And if everyone took your view of not really caring, would we ever actually figure it out? I'm glad some people do care so that someday we can figure it out. This is called hope.

And if everyone was a Baptist minister, then society would collapse, since we wouldn't have doctors or electricians or...

Not sure what your point is.

And since religion has an absolutely terrible track record in explaining natural phenomenons, I'm not so sure I'd be excited about the future. I doubt we'd get to a point where scientists will say "Yep, had to be a god.".

I believe the concept of God because it makes more sense than any other concept presented to me.

Then perhaps in the future you shouldn't use the argument that how long an idea has been around has any bearing on it's truthfulness.

Again, I'm just trying to be as reasonable as possible when explaining my beliefs.

I find when discussing things with people it's best not to use concepts that only make sense to myself.

So where's the physical evidence to support the mutli-verse idea or the imaginary time idea? There is no physical evidence, the only evidence we have is that the mathematics point to these possible concepts, but the mathematics itself is not physical proof of the concept it only points to the concept as being possible.

Ok...

The Bible is not physical evidence of God, it only points to the truth that God inspired it. Acceptance of this truth is where you begin to find understanding.

You haven't demonstrated that the Bible is "inspired" by any gods. And since I don't believe things without evidence...

 

[Chriliman]

What reasoning is that?

Have you ever stop to think that maybe that is the problem...you don't have any reasoning to back your position. All you can say is, I don't know if God exists and I refuse to accept that God exists. Yet you have no reasoning to back this position, you especially have no physical evidence to back this position.

At least I have reasoning to back my beliefs. I don't just claim non-belief and expect the answers to come out of thin air. At some point in order to really determine if this God thing is a hoax, you have to take the step and accept the truth that God is possible.

This is all I've got for you, until I learn more.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Have you ever stop to think that maybe that is the problem...you don't have any reasoning to back your position. All you can say is, I don't know if God exists and I refuse to accept that God exists.

Strawman...

Yet you have no reasoning to back this position, you especially have no physical evidence to back this position.

The idea that someone needs physical evidence to support non-belief is nonsensical. I suggest taking a few courses in logic and critical thinking. I'm sure I can recommend a few books to get you started.

At least I have reasoning to back my beliefs. I don't just claim non-belief and expect the answers to come out of thin air.

Strawman (part 2)...

At some point in order to really determine if this God thing is a hoax, you have to take the step and accept the truth that God is possible.

I was a Christian growing up. Was a youth leader, a soul winner, the whole nine yards. In college, one of my majors was Philosophy, with an emphasis in comparative religion. I've read the Bible (and the Koran, and the Upanishads, etc.). I know all the arguments for the existence of a god.

And...

I see no reason to believe that a god or gods exist.

 

[Chriliman]

How do you know the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence (without using the circular argument that the concept came from God) ?

I don't really feel like going through every shred of evidence for human existence to figure this out so I'll ask you: How do you know it hasn't?

If an infinite and timeless God makes sense, then an infinite and timeless universe makes more sense - Ockham's Razor applies. And if, for some reason, you still need a God concept, there's the Spinozan God-as-universe, which Einstein favoured.

Except an infinite timeless universe does not make sense because we can observe an apparent beginning to the universe. Its true that we observe an apparent beginning of the universe, therefore, its unreasonable to assume the universe is infinite. Just because we can't directly observe the universe beginning does not mean its not true that it didn't begin. The fact that we observe an apparent beginning points more to it having a beginning rather than it being infinite, unless you're just being unreasonable and want to ignore what we actually observe. In fact Ockham's Razor would support the more simple explanation that the universe has a beginning especially since this is what we observe.

Do I have to agree with everything Einstein favored or can I actually think for myself? I don't seek worldly knowledge, which is exactly why I can think outside the box.

 

[Davian]

Not at all.

I know that Ehrman does not think that Jesus was buried in Joseph's tomb. He has his reasons.

Reasons he provides.

If one is honest

Do you find that only honest people agree with you?

and open

Are you open to the idea that you are wrong about gods, and that they are only characters in books? Or is that option closed for you?

and is genuinely seeking the truth

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth. I seek accurate descriptions of reality.

then they will look at the available evidence and draw conclusions from it.

The evidence seems to point to gods being simply characters in books. What happened to that "case" you were going to make that that deity of yours?

He makes use of his imagination a lot in his writings and I simply find that problematic.

Understandable, in that he does not come to the same conclusions as you.

I can imagine a lot of things. So personally I find most of his arguments very weak.

Sure, but can you demonstrate him to be wrong?

 

[Chriliman]

I was a Christian growing up. Was a youth leader, a soul winner, the whole nine yards. In college, one of my majors was Philosophy, with an emphasis in comparative religion. I've read the Bible (and the Koran, and the Upanishads, etc.). I know all the arguments for the existence of a god.

I'm finding more and more people like you, who claim they were Christian before and now they're not. The difference with me is that I claimed to be Christian for a long time and now I realize I really wasn't a true Christian until I fully accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior with all my heart, soul and mind. My mind being the last thing I finally gave to him. I stopped thinking I could know everything and instead put my complete trust in Jesus and let Him teach me.

I'd believe you when you say you know all the arguments for the existence of God if you actually knew all things at all times, but this is not the case so I'm pretty sure you don't actually know all the arguments for the existence of God and I have a feeling we haven't even scratched the surface of all the arguments for the existence of God.