How to prove God exists.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That isn't what the Bible teaches. The Bible tells us that those who aren't overwhelmed aren't overwhelmed due to very sinister reasons.

Ah, so it's overwhelming unless... it isn't.

So what are the 'very sinister' reasons?

[I suspect it'll be a Catch-22, like when Orr says Appleby has flies in his eyes. When Yossarian asks how Appleby doesn't know that, Orr says, "Because he’s got flies in his eyes; how can he see he's got flies in his eyes if he's got flies in his eyes?"]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you acknowledge the difference between your material body and your non-material mind and that both exist in reality?

It's the difference between legs and running, a calculator and calculating, a brain and thinking.

The mind is the term used to describe the high-level processes that are the activity of a material brain, i.e. the mind is what the brain does.

 

[Freodin]

They are established as solid facts because cogent reasoning compels us to view them that way. The fact that Jesus, the Bible and the Apostles agree are added benefits.

Then it should be possible to present and reasonably analyse this "cogent reasoning [that] compels us".

But what we get when we ask for it is mostly "there is compelling reason. We should not have to go through any 'proof', because there is compelling reason.", and in the few cases where this "compelling" reasoning it presented, any criticism is wiped away with "you should just accept it, your excuses are invalid. It says here it is compelling, so either for God's sake be compelled or I accuse you of having nefarious reasons."

It is really sad that you can't see it.

 

[Radrook]

Ah, so it's overwhelming unless... it isn't.

So what are the 'very sinister' reasons?

[I suspect it'll be a Catch-22, like when Orr says Appleby has flies in his eyes. When Yossarian asks how Appleby doesn't know that, Orr says, "Because he’s got flies in his eyes; how can he see he's got flies in his eyes if he's got flies in his eyes?"]

You consider the things you believe as based on overwhelming evidence and yet they don't convince everyone do they? So you see, even in your attempted counterarguments you seem to display a certain penchant for selective vision.

 

[Radrook]

Then it should be possible to present and reasonably analyse this "cogent reasoning [that] compels us".

But what we get when we ask for it is mostly "there is compelling reason. We should not have to go through any 'proof', because there is compelling reason.", and in the few cases where this "compelling" reasoning it presented, any criticism is wiped away with "you should just accept it, your excuses are invalid. It says here it is compelling, so either for God's sake be compelled or I accuse you of having nefarious reasons."

It is really sad that you can't see it.

Of course it should be and it is. But that doesn't prevent the deployment of selective vision-does it? Or prevent the claims of inability to see or comprehend simple concepts leading to inevitable cogent conclusions-right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...As for giving up of humanity, humanity was created with the sole purpose of serving its maker, so atheists are the ones casting aside this duty and in the process casting aside what it truly means to be human.

But this is all contingent on accepting the religious belief in the first place, so cannot be used to rationally support that belief.

One might just as well say that, "atheism is the freedom from the pernicious influence of beliefs in the fictions of gods and the supernatural, so religious believers are wasting their lives and humanity in the pointless worship of such fictions".

It's not an argument, just an assertion of belief.

 

[Chriliman]

It's the difference between legs and running, a calculator and calculating, a brain and thinking.

The mind is the term used to describe the high-level processes that are the activity of a material brain, i.e. the mind is what the brain does.

Makes sense.

 

[Radrook]

But this is all contingent on accepting the religious belief in the first place, so cannot be used to rationally support that belief.

One might just as well say that, "atheism is the freedom from the pernicious influence of beliefs in the fictions of gods and the supernatural, so religious believers are wasting their lives and humanity in the pointless worship of such fictions".

It's not an argument, just an assertion of belief.

From our standpoint your position is a mere assertion of belief and not a fact and is contingent on accepting your irrational unjustifiable atheist assumptions so they can't be used to support your belief.

 

[bhsmte]

But this is all contingent on accepting the religious belief in the first place, so cannot be used to rationally support that belief.

One might just as well say that, "atheism is the freedom from the pernicious influence of beliefs in the fictions of gods and the supernatural, so religious believers are wasting their lives and humanity in the pointless worship of such fictions".

It's not an argument, just an assertion of belief.

Nailed it!

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you acknowledge the difference between your material body and your non-material mind and that both exist in reality?

It depends on what you mean by "non-material mind". The way you use it I probably reject its existance, its just imagination.

 

[VirOptimus]

Science without belief in anything at all is lobotomized. Weird concept you just postulated amigo.

No, its not. You simply dont understand the different concepts. You should study philosophy and theology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You consider the things you believe as based on overwhelming evidence and yet they don't convince everyone do they? So you see, even in your attempted counterarguments you seem to display a certain penchant for selective vision.

That wasn't a counter-argument, just a paraphrase of your claim and a simple question.

I'm quite happy to say why something seems overwhelming likely to me, but I may be wrong. If someone questions my view, I'm happy to explain why I think it's overwhelmingly probable and/or point them in the direction of authoritative & reliable supporting evidence. If someone contradicts my view I'm happy to listen to why they think it's wrong and/or examine authoritative & reliable supporting evidence against it. If the explanation or evidence plausibly suggests my view is mistaken, I'm happy to revise my view. My views are contingent on the best evidence and/or arguments I have encountered - it seems like the most reasonable approach.

Is that what you meant by my, 'penchant for selective vision'?

What I don't generally do is try to explain my views by exclaiming, "It's obvious! If you can't see it you're blind!" or, "there must be some very sinister reasons why you don't see it!". I don't think that's very helpful or polite. If I think something is overwhelmingly likely or obvious to me, I like to think I could explain why, so that someone else can at least understand my reasons, whether they agree with them or not.

 

[Chriliman]

It depends on what you mean by "non-material mind". The way you use it I probably reject its existance, its just imagination.

You reject that imagination exists in reality?

I'd argue that imagination does exist in reality but that it doesn't always accurately reflect reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What does atheism profit you?

"profit" is not a factor.

I'm an atheist simply because I find the claims of theism unconvincing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bringing of western civilization means bringing order. Let's say that I wonder why the average Indian in the city while waiting for his train wears his typically western wardrobe.

Really?

So... because the current western civilisation model is the most succesfull, therefor christianity is correct?

Here's something I told you in other topics as well:
correlation does not imply causation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Learning, observing and reasoning have nothing against religion.

Nore anything for it. The point exactly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Christian mores and morality civilized all the regions you mentioned.

Ow yes. Pre-columbian native american populations have all but disappeared, killed by the hands of these christians that came to "civilize" them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From our standpoint your position is a mere assertion of belief and not a fact and is contingent on accepting your irrational unjustifiable atheist assumptions so they can't be used to support your belief.

I haven't asserted a belief. My position is one of not being persuaded that the supernatural and/or God is more than a fiction.

To me the world looks exactly as one would expect it to look if gods and the supernatural are human fictions; there are hundreds of them claiming to be the only true path, generally backed by writings interpreted in multiple conflicting ways; they appear to have no explanatory or predictive value and only social utility. I'm curious to hear plausible arguments or see authoritative and reliable evidence for any of them.

I grew up in a religious community, so I'm not unfamiliar with the ideas - but although the moral guidelines and cultural mores were generally reasonable, I heard only evasion, obfuscation, and platitudes about God and the associated supernatural beliefs.

If you think my skeptical view is irrational, you should be able to explain the flaw in my reasoning. If you think it's unjustifiable, you should be able to show why.

If you think the evidence in favour of your religious belief is obvious and overwhelming, shouldn't you be able to explain, describe, or demonstrate it so that a non-believer can understand why you think so, even if we don't agree?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's the difference between legs and running, a calculator and calculating, a brain and thinking.

The mind is the term used to describe the high-level processes that are the activity of a material brain, i.e. the mind is what the brain does.

That's awesomely put dude.

I've rarely seen it expressed so elegantly!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From our standpoint your position is a mere assertion of belief and not a fact and is contingent on accepting your irrational unjustifiable atheist assumptions so they can't be used to support your belief.

Severe case of projection as well as strawmanning what atheism actually is.

Theism is the belief.
Atheism is when you don't have that particular belief.
Atheism is not a belief by itself.