What Convinced you God Exists?

[HIM]

How did god show you he exists?

Through My Conscience as a a kid and through my Christian experience. Then when I started seeking Him He has done things in my life numerous times that can not be explained.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you are making the positive claim for more options, then the burden of proof is on you.

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy... again.

Nope. It's your claim.

What claim did I make? Use the quote feature.

Oh, if you're going to retract it, then no worries.

Retract what? What claim are you talking about? Quote me.

Seriously, if you don't care then no worries. I meant it.

No, you accused me of making a claim I didn't make. Now when I tell you to quote me, you act as though I'm trying to retract something I never said. Because you know you can't quote me making any such claim. Because you know that I never made any such claim.

That's a negative claim. You don't seem to understand the fact that I play by atheist rules here. Arbitrary as they may be, I try to stay consistent. Just because I said atheist rules aren't really rules doesn't imply I ever abandoned them.

They aren't atheist rules, they're your rules. I'm the atheist in this discussion, so if you're going to play by atheist rules, then you need to support all of your claims. Those are the rules of the atheist here. If you choose not to carry the burden of proof, that's on you. It ain't on atheists. Don't use us as the scapegoat for your failings at argumentation.

I'll play by your rules though. Your argument is not sound. I don't have to support that claim because it's negative, so the burden is on you to prove it wrong. And in order to prove it wrong, you need to prove that all of your premises are true. So get to it. Prove that the explanation for the Big Bang must be one of the three options you presented.

Soundness doesn't require infinite proof either. If you accept the Big Bang theory as true (and why wouldn't you?), then the proof is sound. If you accept the universe is finite, then the proof is sound. If you don't accept either of these, then you're just anti-science, and I admit that I can't do anything about that.

It requires you to prove your premises. You haven't even attempted because you're using "b-but it's a negative claim" as an excuse to assert without evidence. So yes, the Big Bang happened and the universe began expanding from a central point. Your argument attempts to prove that there was a cause of that expansion, and that you can deduce what that cause was. You say the Big Bang must have one of three explanations, I say prove that. Which you can't do without crying, "b-but you didn't come up with any others!" which is your trademark Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

"The Big Bang" is not a premise of your argument.

Of course it isn't. I never claimed it was, either.

Um, yes. Yes you did. Explicitly I might add.

The premises = The Big Bang

There's nothing irrational about using the Big Bang as a premise.

Why do you say so many false things?

 

[Paulomycin]

No, you accused me of making a claim I didn't make. Now when I tell you to quote me, you act as though I'm trying to retract something I never said. Because you know you can't quote me making any such claim. Because you know that I never made any such claim.

Okay. No worries. If you never made any such claim, that's fine with me.

They aren't atheist rules, they're your rules.

There are no "rules" regarding burden of proof. I'm simply behaving as-if "you can't prove a negative" were true to avoid unnecessary conflict with the atheist majority.

I'm the atheist in this discussion, so if you're going to play by atheist rules, then you need to support all of your claims.

According to atheist rules, it is limited to positive claims only. Negative claims don't count.

I'll play by your rules though.

Then you have to admit God exists.

Um, yes. Yes you did. Explicitly I might add.

Not necessarily according to that framework. I still can't even find a single website that tells me what framework Aquinas' argument followed. One thing I do know is that elimination is definitely different from a traditional syllogism.

Why do you say so many false things?

Because your loaded question fallacy magically said so. lol.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay. No worries. If you never made any such claim, that's fine with me.

So you just said "It's your claim" about a claim I never made just because... So, back to the point:

Okay, so then you do assert some things without evidence.

Where?

Right here:

Nor can there be.

No, that's a negative claim. If you are making the positive claim for more options, then the burden of proof is on you.

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

There are no "rules" regarding burden of proof. I'm simply behaving as-if "you can't prove a negative" were true to avoid unnecessary conflict with the atheist majority.

No conflict here, go ahead and prove all of your claims. Starting with "nor can there be". (You didn't think I forgot about your claim that you refuse to provide evidence for didja?)

According to atheist rules, it is limited to positive claims only.

Just to recap, you made a thread about how the difference between proving a negative and proving a positive is arbitrary. As your source, you quoted an article written by an atheist who explains why it's not a rule. You then proceed to claim that the "you can't prove a negative" is an atheist rule. And then when talking to atheists who tell you that it ain't a rule, you refuse to prove your claims because they're negative and blame atheists... Ridiculous.

Then you have to admit God exists.

Nope. <---Negative claim; don't gotta prove it (according to you).

Things are gonna get downright silly around here if we get to just assert whatever we want as long as we use words like "not" and "no".

"The Big Bang" is not a premise of your argument.

Of course it isn't. I never claimed it was, either.

Um, yes. Yes you did. Explicitly I might add.

The premises = The Big Bang

There's nothing irrational about using the Big Bang as a premise.

Not necessarily according to that framework. I still can't even find a single website that tells me what framework Aquinas' argument followed. One thing I do know is that elimination is definitely different from a traditional syllogism.

lol

Why do you say so many false things?

Because your loaded question fallacy magically said so. lol.

It isn't a loaded question when so many falsehoods have been established and documented. Why, there's three documented in this very response. If I ask a spousal abuser, "Do you still beat your wife?" that ain't a loaded question. And asking you, "Why do you say so many false things?" ain't a loaded question either.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Through My Conscience as a a kid and through my Christian experience. Then when I started seeking Him He has done things in my life numerous times that can not be explained.

The key words are cannot be explained. Why if they cannot be explained did you assume it was God?

 

[Paulomycin]

Nope. <---Negative claim; don't gotta prove it (according to you).

According to most atheists.

It isn't a loaded question when so many falsehoods have been established and documented. Why, there's three documented in this very response.

Based on your wild assumptions.

If I ask a spousal abuser, "Do you still beat your wife?" that ain't a loaded question.

It's totally a loaded question, regardless of whether they're a real spousal abuser or not. The situation doesn't magically change fallacious questions! Wow.

I think the real problem is very clear now.

 

[Paulomycin]

lol

Now you're mixing your own quotes up. And no, I'm not going to help you untangle your own mess. My premise was the Big Bang, but not according to the multiple premise model you pulled out of nowhere.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, I will admit that you are drawing it out of me, and I don't really want to say it, but yes, the ability and habit of fooling ourselves is pervasive. Not only for atheists, but for EVERYBODY. That doesn't mean we always are fooling ourselves, except in that we give more credence to our limited worldview than it merits. That is apparently necessary just to keep our heads above water, but one should admit the fact to themselves, just to stay skeptical of their notions. I am not saying it is intentional on the part of any particular person here, in that they realize they are doing it and protect and disguise it, but that it is there all the same. (And like I said, I do it too. I am, for example, more than capable of making a statement I know well is true, and instead of amending it when amending is called for, I scramble to find a way to support and defend it. Strangely enough, sometimes that works out to be a good thing that a person is not too quick to accept apparent evidence to the contrary of what they believe.)











As for Romans 1, by the way, not just my answer to your first paragraph above pretty well answers what I think, but I want to say it is not just about declared Atheists, but anyone who is not made new by God. As a matter of fact, even believers, when they rebel, are pretty much saying/ doing the same thing, claiming their own creator is not real and/or not relevant. My opinion is that their condemnation should be that much worse. "From him to whom much has been given, much will be required."



I've heard of some who became intellectually convinced of the existence of God through that argument, but no, not immediately taking on faith in the logically necessary implications.

As a young teen (I'm 65 now), I knew, and considered it intuitive, (lol, yet it involved considerable reasoning), that God had to be First Cause. I KNEW that to be God, ALL that is, came from him --first on my mind was the principle we refer to as time, then I realized all principle, and indeed all fact, had to proceed from him. God does not fit anywhere. It all fits him. Is that intuition?? Back then, I would probably have said yes. Now, I see that it can actually be developed logically. But, My current level of philosophical clarity doesn't make my faith any more reasoned, nor less emotional, than it was back then.



"It just makes the most sense to me" sounds like reason has occurred. The incapacity to put into words or even cogent thought, or to develop it logically does not automatically indicate fideism. It kind of galls me how Christendom has for so long taught fideism is preferable to reason, almost as if reason is to be avoided.

Frankly I should think we all should understand, as skeptical of self, that reason and emotion are 'traveling partners'. But, when necessary, my emotions defer to reason. The fastest way to describe this, I think, is that old reference we've already been through on this site (maybe this thread --I don't remember): That "FAITH is the evidence of things not seen". (I take that literally. It is not madness. And, btw, the faith referenced there is not merely what is defined in the dictionary, but faith given by God, produced by God. I will describe it more if you wish.)

Yet if I had never heard that verse nor reasoned on the subject, it would not stop my faith from being reasoned. But yes, intellectual assent is not of itself faith. My intellect may fail, but if my faith is produced by God, it cannot fail. Now, that does not make me a fideist. If anyone brings up something to make me question my faith, I don't set my jaw and fold my arms violently against my chest. I look it square in the face.

I think my problem with this is that you seem to want to insist it must be one or the other in the main. I insist both are necessary for intellectually capable people. I also speculate that the intellect involves a lot more than most people realize. Faith is not mostly emotion.



I had not thought of it in terms of 'plains of existence' or better, 'levels of reality' before reading some of CS Lewis' stuff as a young man. And even now, while I consider this life we are stuck in for now as a mere vapor by comparison to what is to come, it is, nevertheless, reality. Christ really died in it, for one thing that I cannot dismiss. (While I like the notion of this being a simulation, I don't think it is. But it may as well be, as to the effect and usefulness of it. It is, I think in some way, after all, quite possibly accurate to say the Omni is all in the mind of God.)

Still pondering whether I want to respond to all of this or not, via post #256 ?.?.?

Do you still find [this] discussion fruitful? If so, I would like to set aside some time to address all your points/responses, one-by-one. But if you just want to let all that has been said, to now stand as sufficient, via what has already been addressed, so-be-it?

Let me know?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Still pondering whether I want to respond to all of this or not, via post #256 ?.?.?

Do you still find [this] discussion fruitful? If so, I would like to set aside some time to address all your points/responses, one-by-one. But if you just want to let all that has been said, to now stand as sufficient, via what has already been addressed, so-be-it?

Let me know?

I'm enjoying it (but then, I'm doing most the talking, lol), though am curious to hear your take. I can't get enough of talking about God. But I'll leave it up to you.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm enjoying it (but then, I'm doing most the talking, lol), though am curious to hear your take. I can't get enough of talking about God. But I'll leave it up to you.

Okay... I will address post #256 when I can devote my undivided attention

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well actually , God is always personal no matter how He is revealed to us.

Kind of goes with something I have always noticed about him --emotionally or intellectually apprehended-- the admission that he exists has a reaction, because it implies submission. Hard to push aside.

Very personal.

 

[Moral Orel]

According to most atheists.

Prove it. That's a positive claim, no weaseling out. It ain't according to the atheist you cited in your thread, lol.

Based on your wild assumptions.

No, it's all documented in post 264. No assumptions necessary.

It's totally a loaded question, regardless of whether they're a real spousal abuser or not. The situation doesn't magically change fallacious questions! Wow.

I think the real problem is very clear now.

Wow. No it's not.

Loaded Question
It occurs when someone asks a question containing an unjustified (and often offensive) presupposition.
Loaded Question
A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with.​

Is two enough? If the part you claim is loaded is actually a fact, then it ain't loaded.

​

It's only fallacious when it's unjustified, and with all the documented cases, it is justified to state that you say many false things. So how come?

Now you're mixing your own quotes up.

Nope. Remember, every quote has a hyperlink attached so that folks can follow along and verify that they're in the order they were stated. It sort of diffuses your whole "distract and then forget" tactic doesn't it?

My premise was the Big Bang

Now the Big Bang is a premise again. Here they are in the order they occurred:

The premises = The Big Bang

"The Big Bang" is not a premise of your argument.

Of course it isn't. I never claimed it was, either.

My premise was the Big Bang

Nothing tangled, just a lot of flopping in the wind on your part.

 

[HIM]

The key words are cannot be explained. Why if they cannot be explained did you assume it was God?

Sure it can.
Why do you think it can not be explained?

Explain quilt. There is no reason for it in respect to the survival of the fittest.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Explain quilt. There is no reason for it in respect to the survival of the fittest.

Members of a species that evolved the survival mechanism of cooperation, a social species, experience guilt when the fail to cooperate with other members of the species. Guilt (and for that matter, approval seeking) ensures the cohesion of the group and thus the survival of the species.

Done.

 

[HIM]

Members of a species that evolved the survival mechanism of cooperation, a social species, experience guilt when the fail to cooperate with other members of the species. Guilt (and for that matter, approval seeking) ensures the cohesion of the group and thus the survival of the species.

Done.

Done? Not at all. We are selfish by nature in general.
There is no reason for us to feel bad about doing something that is wrong when no one is looking.


.

 

[Freth]

Was it a philosophical argument such as the cosmological argument or was it some type of personal experience? or something other than one of these?

Two things convinced me that God exists. The first was love in 2008, but I didn't come back to Christianity until 2016. I didn't see it for what it was. The second was the existence of Satan, which was proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Two things convinced me that God exists. The first was love in 2008, but I didn't come back to Christianity until 2016. I didn't see it for what it was. The second was the existence of Satan, which was proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

what were the reasons you attributed love to god and what were the reasons you believe satan is real?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Done? Not at all. We are selfish by nature in general.
There is no reason for us to feel bad about doing something that is wrong when no one is looking.


.

Yes. Done. I gave you a reason we feel guilt. We evolved to feel it. It benefits the species.

Your argument from incredulity is not a rebuttal.

 

[Freth]

what were the reasons you attributed love to god and what were the reasons you believe satan is real?

I posted a thread in the Testimonies forum on the subject of God's love. As for Satan's existence, there are so many things that point to the existence of Satan, you just have to take a look around you, in the things you take for granted every day, found in the powers and principalities that rule this world and the things hidden just below the surface.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I posted a thread in the Testimonies forum on the subject of God's love. As for Satan's existence, there are so many things that point to the existence of Satan, you just have to take a look around you, in the things you take for granted every day, found in the powers and principalities that rule this world and the things hidden just below the surface.

how do you justify your belief that just because people do bad things that satan exists?