The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[quatona]

God is not apprehended via pure reason alone. If that is what you are hoping for, I must tell you, you can stop hoping.

It´s not what I´m hoping for - it´s what your approach in your threads and debate invitations suggests...until your arguments are proven faulty and you end up either having a melt-down or preaching.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't see how it would be possible for someone to acknowledge something they are not convinced of. I really couldn't acknowledge that 1+1=4 because I haven't been presented sufficient evidence to embrace that idea and I also have numerous reasons to reject that it's accurate.

Imagine if a neo-pagan said the same thing to you about Thor. You don't need evidence just believe in him and realize that he rewards those who seek him. Would that even be a viable option? Could you do that? I couldn't.

Look into the life of Christ. If you want to know God and know how God thinks and feels and is like, Christ is God.

 

[Skavau]

Exactly!!!!! That has been my whole point!

That's been what you think your point is.

Your shrugging, your apathy, your lack of desire to know God is why you don't know Him!

That's certainly what you believe.

That isn't why I don't "know him". I am just detailing you the complete irrelevance to me of stating I should "pray to God" or similar such nonsense.

We have made true progress. To such a one as you I would simply pray that God draw you to Himself and open up the eyes of your heart just like He did mine.

Why did you believe in God in the first place?

 

[Elioenai26]

It´s not what I´m hoping for - it´s what your approach in your threads and debate invitations suggests...until your arguments are proven faulty and you end up either having a melt-down or preaching.

I present the arguments for your sake, not mine.

You too can know God, wholly apart from an argument. You can have a relationship with Him. You can repent and yield your life and all that you are over to Him and worship Him and live for Him all the days of your life.

 

[Skavau]

I present the arguments for your sake, not mine.

You too can know God, wholly apart from an argument. You can have a relationship with Him. You can repent and yield your life and all that you are over to Him and worship Him and live for Him all the days of your life.

That sounds Orwellian to me.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's been what you think your point is.


That's certainly what you believe.

That isn't why I don't "know him". I am just detailing you the complete irrelevance to me of stating I should "pray to God" or similar such nonsense.


Why did you believe in God in the first place?

Why not believe in God?

Why do you believe you are a human and not an android?

 

[Skavau]

Why not believe in God?

No reason to do so.

But still, this is important. You said you came to God after you believed he existed. What made you believe he existed before repenting?

Why do you believe you are a human and not an android?

I know what the definition of "Android" is.

I do not match the definition of an android. I do however, match the definition of a human.

 

[Elioenai26]

No reason to do so.

But still, this is important. You said you came to God after you believed he existed. What made you believe he existed before repenting?


I know what the definition of "Android" is.

I do not match the definition of an android. I do however, match the definition of a human.

How do you know you are not an adroid. I didn't ask you if you knew what the definition was.

You might look just like a human but really only think you are a human. You could be a robot who looks human.

How do YOU KNOW you are a human?

 

[Skavau]

How do you know you are not an adroid. I didn't ask you if you knew what the definition was.

You might look just like a human but really only think you are a human. You could be a robot who looks human.

How do YOU KNOW you are a human?

I'll answer this when:

a) I see the relevance of the questioning.

b) You answer my question.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'll answer this when:

a) I see the relevance of the questioning.

b) You answer my question.

God's existence is self evident to me the same way it is self evident to me that I am a human and not a robot.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Look into the life of Christ. If you want to know God and know how God thinks and feels and is like, Christ is God.

I have. I've been searching and studying the religions of the world for most of my life. I started searching when I was in Jr High school. Christianity is probably the faith I've studied the most both as a Christian and later while practicing other religions or no religion. The apparent lack of evidence eventually overpowered my faith though. I really wanted Christianity to be true and it was rather painful when I couldn't make Christian teachings stand up to scrutiny.

Since leaving Christianity I have come across more reasonable formulations of the Christian faith than I had (Process Theology seems a little more reasonable than the Evangelical and later Orthodox Fundamentalism I had previously embraced for example) but even the better versions are still ultimately unconvincing to me. Certainly if they work for you and contribute to you living a more compassionate life I'm down with that though.

 

[quatona]

I present the arguments for your sake, not mine.

Why would you create thread after thread presenting your arguments "for our sake" when OTOH you claim that arguments won´t convince anyone?

You too can know God, wholly apart from an argument. You can have a relationship with Him. You can repent and yield your life and all that you are over to Him and worship Him and live for Him all the days of your life.

This is the philosophy forum, not your pulpit.

 

[Skavau]

God's existence is self evident to me the same way it is self evident to me that I am a human and not a robot.

So God's existence just became apparent to you before you repented?

Now, onto your question:

You might look just like a human but really only think you are a human. You could be a robot who looks human.

Yes, I could.

But there's no evidence for that proposition. No reason to take it seriously.

 

[Elioenai26]

I have. I've been searching and studying the religions of the world for most of my life. I started searching when I was in Jr High school. Christianity is probably the faith I've studied the most both as a Christian and later while practicing other religions or no religion. The apparent lack of evidence eventually overpowered my faith though. I really wanted Christianity to be true and it was rather painful when I couldn't make Christian teachings stand up to scrutiny.

Since leaving Christianity I have come across more reasonable formulations of the Christian faith than I had (Process Theology seems a little more reasonable than the Evangelical and later Orthodox Fundamentalism I had previously embraced for example) but even the better versions are still ultimately unconvincing to me. Certainly if they work for you and contribute to you living a more compassionate life I'm down with that though.

I think you misunderstood me.

I said look into the life of Christ, not various schools of thought in Christianity.

Look into the life of Christ and what He taught not what men today say about Him.

Each man must make his own decision regarding who Christ is. For did not Christ, after asking His disciples who people said He was, not ask the disciples themselves? What was Peter's confession?

 

[Elioenai26]

Why would you create thread after thread presenting your arguments "for our sake" when OTOH you claim that arguments won´t convince anyone?


This is the philosophy forum, not your pulpit.

I never claimed my arguments "won't convince anyone".

Without God, there would be no philosophers.

 

[quatona]

I never claimed my arguments "won't convince anyone".

"God is not apprehended via pure reason alone."
You may find subtle differences between those two statement - differences which are, however, immaterial for what I pointed out.

Without God, there would be no philosophers.

Preach away.

 

[Elioenai26]

"God is not apprehended via pure reason alone."
You may find subtle differences between those two statement - differences which are, however, immaterial for what I pointed out.


Preach away.

You will have to tell that that those who have found reasonable justification for their belief in God after having been presented with the various arguments for the existence of God.

They are my proof that the two statements are different.

Only rational intelligences are capable of philosophizing. The very fact that you engage in philosophizing is evidence that God has made you able to do so.

Unless of course you are unwilling to accept that and have another explanation. ...I.e. matter creates mind and intentionality...

I think you are a smart man. I don't think you actually believe that natural forces acting on matter unguided and completely randomly were the ultimate cause of you being alive today.

I think you are smarter than that.

 

[quatona]

You will have to tell that that those who have found reasonable justification for their belief in God after having been presented with the various arguments for the existence of God.

You mean these arguments are able to convince the already convinced? No dispute from me. You should carry them there, then.

They are my proof that the two statements are different.

Only if you redefine "convince".

Only rational intelligences are capable of philosophizing. The very fact that you engage in philosophizing is evidence that God has made you able to do so.

Ah, another variation of the argument from squirrels.

Unless of course you are unwilling to accept that and have another explanation.

Another explanation? The above is not an explanation - it´s an assertion.

...I.e. matter creates mind and intentionality...

Indeed, that wouldn´t be an explanation either.
However, "mind depends on matter" is at least observable here in this universe, whereas "matter depends on mind" is just an exceptional claim with no evidence behind it.

I think you are a smart man.

I wish I could honestly return this compliment.

I don't think you actually believe that natural forces acting on matter unguided and completely randomly were the ultimate cause of you being alive today.

That´s right: I don´t believe that (I´m "too smart" to use a term like "ultimate" in such a context, anyway)... and I am too intelligent to fill the gap in my knowledge with an equally incredulous and non-explanatory assertion, e.g. "Goddidit".
Plus I am "too smart" to fall for one of your favourite tactics: Hiding your inability to defend your assertions behind attacking strawmen.

I think you are smarter than that.

Have you taken lessons in rhethorics and demagoguery recently?

 

[Davian]

...
What was this evidence that you speak of here in reference to these "dishonest atheists"?

Was it something testable, repeatable, and falsifiable, like a DNA paternity test in the father/son analogy?

The evidence God has given men that leaves them without excuse for denying He exists. You know what this evidence is because God has made it known to all men. Yes Davian, that means you too!

This evidence is even more sure, more real, more trustworthy than a DNA test!
...

So, what is this evidence?

 

[Davian]

God is not apprehended via pure reason alone. If that is what you are hoping for, I must tell you, you can stop hoping.

God is apprehended by them that have been drawn by Him.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. God being God....cannot restrict Himself only to those who are really smart or who are intellectuals. He does not confine Himself to a mere argument or something that can be examined under a microscope.

God is bigger than that.

You have provided nothing to date that would require your "God" to be anything "bigger" than a product of human imagination.

That would also explain why you cannot apprehend it by reason alone, and that you cannot provide empirical evidence for its existence.

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god isn't detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." - NMS

Elio, I think you have exposed the Achilles heel of theism. Yours in particular.

Those atheists you were referring to weren't being dishonest, were they?