Theist evidence/arguments.

[Sanoy]

An adequate reason for trusting my intellectual faculties is that for the majority of the time they help me to judge reality very well. I am able to predict what would happen if I did X, and a lot of the time that prediction is correct. I don't need to know how it happened that I acquired the ability to think logically, to be able to use logic.



Our intellectual faculties, such as logic, aid survival and therefore we trust them. There is no need to involve the concept of purpose, with regard to our brains capacity to think logically.




You do need to know the truth in order to survive. For example, you need to know that certain foods won't kill you. And Logic is an example of a mental faculty, which aids this.




I don't quite follow what you are saying here. Are you saying that only one belief causes an action?



I don't quite follow this either. Are you saying we might not know what caused us to do a certain thing, and that there could be any number of reasons for us to carry out a particular action.



I think that purpose could be possible, but natural selection presents us with an alternative. So, I think this argument lacks a definitive conclusion.

If possible I would like our discussion to be a dialogue rather than a line by line response, those can get pretty hairy.

Natural selection regards behavior, not beliefs. Specifically behaviors that lead to survival, and behaviors that lead one to pass on their genes. I don't need to know the truth to survive, or pass on my genes, I just need to have the behavior. So lets say there is a tiger in the woods. I don't need to believe that there is a tiger that wants to eat me to have the behavior of running away. I can believe that it's a ufo that wants to abduct me and that belief will result in the same behavior. Because there is only one true belief, and a multitude of false beliefs that will result in the same behavior it is more probable that I hold a false belief than a true belief. So natural selection alone isn't an alternative, but a serious problem. If we place natural selection as the foundation of our intellectual faculties all we will get is a dialectical loop, because if natural selection is the cause of our intellectual faculties we should doubt our beliefs, including that belief, and that belief etc.

I would be a Theist whether I was a Christian or not because metaphysical naturalism doesn't satisfy the breadth of experience - it explains a bit, and simply demands the rest doesn't exist. So I would always be seeking a teleological explanation to my faculties, both for that reason, the reasons I have listed, and that a non teleological explanation leads to a dialectical loop as mentioned above. I cannot live in a dialectical loop, nor can I deny the question, so I would naturally be a Theist.

Let me explain what I mean when I say that experience means something. I eat food, and drink water because I am compelled to do so by my body which makes me feel hungry and thirsty. When it comes to beliefs that we hold we have intuitions that compel us to believe things. For example we have an intuition that if x happens 10,000 times it will happen 10,001 times. Our intellectual faculties are composed of a large group of such intuitions that makes us feel satisfied about a proposition when certain criteria are met. A given intuition is just a slice of our intellectual faculties.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was trying to convey in the sentence in which I used the words purely human, that most screwy things happen as a consequence of human beings, not as the result of some superhuman entity, ie a "being" called Satan.

... mmm. I don't think the writers of the bible said that screwy things were ONLY and NECESSARILY caused by the Devil alone. No, we're told by the writers in the bible that human beings do their fine share of creating sinful infrastructure(s) all by their own selves, but the Devil inspires an "extra Tang and Impetus" to it all that human beings so lust after and feel so fine in dilly dallying with.

So, while it's one thing to assert baldly that you just simply see it all as a purely human, materialistic project, part of which I can understand philosophically, the underlying epistemic, metaphysical and axiological underpinnings of your point of view need to be scrutinized for their shortcomings.

Am I implying that you're a 'bad' person? NO! But I am implying that I think you've been hoodwinked into relinquishing any faith you may have had, and that may not be all of your fault. It could be due to an evil duck crossing your path.

 

[klutedavid]

Hi there,
Give me an argument or two as to why I should believe in God? Not including the sentence or one like this: "You know there is a God really."

Steve C.

P.S. Was a "Christian"/christian for many years.

God does exist and we even know what He looks like.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

 

[anx66]

[Sanoy]

I thought you were making an argument, and the post was so long I had to break it down to see what you were getting at. Why don't you like the line by line analysis? Surely to respond to your post and your argument I need to analyse your argument line by line.

What's a dialectical loop?

Natural selection might not be the whole truth, but it is certainly part of the truth. Therefore, there at least two possible solutions.

 

[xianghua]

Hi there,
Give me an argument or two as to why I should believe in God? Not including the sentence or one like this: "You know there is a God really."

Steve C.

P.S. Was a "Christian"/christian for many years.

here is one interesting evidence. take a look at this spinning motor that found in bacteria:

(image from https://phys.org/news/2018-04-bacterial-propeller.html)



we know that a spinning motor is the product of design (even if its small or made from organic matter or has a self replicating system like a living thing). thus if we will find such a motor on a far planet- we can conclude design without any problem. here is another evidence for design. this time is a gear:

(image from This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature | Science | Smithsonian)
again: we know that gears are the product of design.

 

[gaara4158]

We have a choice to trust our faculties or not, the choice doesn't have to be rationally derived, but if that choice is rationally derived there should be an explanation that acquires it. More often than not when I bring this up, people deny their own intellectual faculties -that is why I took the steps I did. It's a bit like cops/robbers. If you turn the siren on too early the robber hides all the merchandise to reacquire it at night. In any case, the OP has confirmed a belief in reliable intellectual faculties, and that is what is at hand.

It’s not a choice, though. The moment you decide that your rational faculties are not reliable, you’re relying on something else you’re assuming is more reliable, and the question of whether you can trust that must be applied. And if the answer is no, it begins an infinite regress of unreliable faculties outstripping the last. No, you have to trust that some part of you is interfacing with reality or you’re just invoking a paradoxical loop of “I can’t trust that I can’t trust that I can’t trust that I can’t trust...” ad infinitum.

 

[Sanoy]

I thought you were making an argument, and the post was so long I had to break it down to see what you were getting at. Why don't you like the line by line analysis? Surely to respond to your post and your argument I need to analyse your argument line by line.

What's a dialectical loop?

Natural selection might not be the whole truth, but it is certainly part of the truth. Therefore, there at least two possible solutions.

Still quote me so I get pinged and see your reply, and if you need to quote use it. The reason why I prefer a standard dialogue is that it forces the two parties to understand the other person, whereas the line by line that you often see show up here puts the person in the position of rejecting a statement before gathering in all of the content. It creates a mental score, where one has to hold all their "pieces" in play rather focusing on the content of what is being discussed. It also creates bulk where 1 line splits into 2, and 2 into 4 and because of the mental score nothing can be relented and the sheer magnitude that it creates leads to frustration and impatience. It's a better way to go about things, both for those involved and those that read through.

A dialectical loop is where you are stuck in circular thought process that can never end, for example the liars paradox. Also Star Treks version. See Gara's post above as he states it well.

You say that natural selection might be a part of the truth and that could be true. However it does not appear to be an essential part, and so isn't needed to explain our intellectual faculties nor can it explain what we believe about them. A strong teleological explanation can explain them, even using natural selection as Theistic evolutionist purport. As with the case of the calculator factory, there are two explanations, but it is the teleological explanation that is the primary explanation for trust. What we have is an abductive case (appeal to the best explanation) for which we should prefer a strong teleological explanation like God.

 

[Sanoy]

It’s not a choice, though. The moment you decide that your rational faculties are not reliable, you’re relying on something else you’re assuming is more reliable, and the question of whether you can trust that must be applied. And if the answer is no, it begins an infinite regress of unreliable faculties outstripping the last. No, you have to trust that some part of you is interfacing with reality or you’re just invoking a paradoxical loop of “I can’t trust that I can’t trust that I can’t trust that I can’t trust...” ad infinitum.

If you are choosing based on rational reasons you are quite correct. That is the dialectical loop I'm talking about.

 

[gaara4158]

If you are choosing based on rational reasons you are quite correct. That is the dialectical loop I'm talking about.

Even if it’s not rational reasons, you’re trusting that something is reliable in there. You can’t coherently deny it. It’s possible that it’s all fake, but it’s impossible to know and pointless to claim.

 

[Sanoy]

Even if it’s not rational reasons, you’re trusting that something is reliable in there. You can’t coherently deny it. It’s possible that it’s all fake, but it’s impossible to know and pointless to claim.

Well, all I can say is that if intellectual faculties were a coat one has by the collar, everyone has abandoned the coat and run off while denying having any rationality. It's not pointless to claim however. If one states that ones intellectual faculties are reliable, as is the case here, there should be an explanation that can acquire that reliability, and one shouldn't hold to an explanation that doesn't.

 

[gaara4158]

Well, all I can say is that if intellectual faculties were a coat one has by the collar, everyone has abandoned the coat and run off while denying having any rationality. It's not pointless to claim however. If one states that ones intellectual faculties are reliable, as is the case here, there should be an explanation that can acquire that reliability, and one shouldn't hold to an explanation that doesn't.

Not exactly. We can acknowledge that we’re forced to trust our faculties while simultaneously acknowledging the logical possibility that our faculties are feeding us an entirely false reality. We don’t then have to explain why our faculties are in fact trustworthy, because even if they’re not we’re still going to trust them. Unless you can show us a way to tell the difference, it truly doesn’t matter.

 

[Hammster]

Hi there,
Give me an argument or two as to why I should believe in God? Not including the sentence or one like this: "You know there is a God really."

Steve C.

P.S. Was a "Christian"/christian for many years.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
— Genesis 1:1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
— Romans 1:18-32

 

[Sanoy]

Not exactly. We can acknowledge that we’re forced to trust our faculties while simultaneously acknowledging the logical possibility that our faculties are feeding us an entirely false reality. We don’t then have to explain why our faculties are in fact trustworthy, because even if they’re not we’re still going to trust them. Unless you can show us a way to tell the difference, it truly doesn’t matter.

We aren't forced to trust it, at least not that I can see, we are simply persuaded to trust it. Freewill is a requirement for rational thinking, I think that should apply here as well. We have to trust it to ponder it, that is certainly true, but cognitive bias is a heck of a narcotic for those that need to deny it. It is also true that it would be hypocritical to act as if it's reliable, while holding to a foundation in which it wouldn't be reliable. So if we relent to it, or if we trust it, which is the case here, why hold to a foundation which can't acquire it? That would seem to be a sudden an inexplicable action.

 

[Jonaitis]

Hi there,
Give me an argument or two as to why I should believe in God? Not including the sentence or one like this: "You know there is a God really."

Steve C.

P.S. Was a "Christian"/christian for many years.

I'm going to say it, you already believe in God but you are simply suppressing it in your unrighteousness.

You should believe in God because he made you.

You should believe in God because you are nothing without him, your life is nothing with him.

You should believe in God so that you may restore that broken relationship with him.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm going to say it, you already believe in God but you are simply suppressing it in your unrighteousness.

A lie.

 

[anx66]

I'm going to say it, you already believe in God but you are simply suppressing it in your unrighteousness.

You should believe in God because he made you.

You should believe in God because you are nothing without him, your life is nothing with him.

You should believe in God so that you may restore that broken relationship with him.

Cheers for that!

 

[anx66]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
— Genesis 1:1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
— Romans 1:18-32

Cheers for that!

 

[anx66]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them;

Does this verse say that all men suppress the truth?
What is the truth this verse speaks about?

 

[Hammster]

Does this verse say that all men suppress the truth?
What is the truth this verse speaks about?

that which is known about God is evident within them;

 

[gaara4158]

We aren't forced to trust it, at least not that I can see, we are simply persuaded to trust it. Freewill is a requirement for rational thinking, I think that should apply here as well. We have to trust it to ponder it, that is certainly true, but cognitive bias is a heck of a narcotic for those that need to deny it. It is also true that it would be hypocritical to act as if it's reliable, while holding to a foundation in which it wouldn't be reliable. So if we relent to it, or if we trust it, which is the case here, why hold to a foundation which can't acquire it? That would seem to be a sudden an inexplicable action.

We are forced to trust it because the alternative is to succumb to a dialectical loop. We’re further persuaded that it’s true because of how coherent everything is on that assumption, but it being false still isn’t a real option for us.