Upon talking with Atheists and reflecting on why I believe in God.

[All Becomes New]

Upon reflecting on why I personally believe in God after engaging with some of the atheists here in honest conversation, this is what I came up with. I've come up with this completely on my own.

1. My experiences are something I don't know/can't predict
2. I know things in my experiences that seem like things I shouldn't know/predict
3. God can know/predict what experiences I need to have in order that it would show me God exists
4. God provides the experiences I need to know that God exists
5. Therefore, God exists

 

[Gene2memE]

You're assuming your conclusion in premise 3. Therefore the argument is invalid. The fallacy is known as 'begging the question'.

You can't use the existence of a thing you're attempting to argue for as evidence of its existence.

Your argument here is: "I have experiences God gives me, therefore God exists".

 

[All Becomes New]

You're assuming your conclusion in premise 3. Therefore the argument is invalid. The fallacy is known as 'begging the question'.

I provide a reasonable inference that explains P1 & P2 with P3 and the C is what is logical based on P3. We can talk about what the probability is that P3 is true, but if we do that then I'm going to need something to compare P3 to.

You can't use the existence of a thing you're attempting to argue for as evidence of its existence.

P3 is evidence that the C is True. Further, C is the logical understanding of P3.

Your argument here is: "I have experiences God gives me, therefore God exists".

But from that PoV you are ignoring P1 and possibly P2.

 

[Kenny'sID]

One of my logics has always been, God makes a whole lot more sense than the big bang or whatever the claim is today that always amounts to something from nothing.

I have never once seen anything that wasn't created. That simply doesn't happen on it's on, or by accedent, and for no reason.

 

[SkyWriting]

You can't use the existence of a thing you're attempting to argue for as evidence of its existence.

If I DID own a car, I'd have a key and it would be in my driveway and I'd have insurance.
Sure enough, the key get's me to work on time, so I think the car must exist as well.
And the snow piled in my driveway is shaped like a car. That's another clue.

 

[Pommer]

1. My experiences are something I don't know/can't predict

This proposition is carrying a heavy load, (one of us should flesh this out before some smart-[bless and do not curse x3] does it for you

2. I know things in my experiences that seem like things I shouldn't know/can't predict

I search for DNA memory, first hit

3. God can know/predict what experiences I need to have in order that would show God's exists

Getting real close to “predestination” here...you gonna be good with that?

4. God provides the experiences I need to know that God exists

Seems like a lot of work that doesn’t need to be done if He’s going to “take you as you are”. Yes, your God is omniscient (for right-here, right-now), trying to “understand it from God’s perspective” is somewhat presumptuous, at least it is for me.

5. Therefore, God exists

I understand if this is a first draft...it’s a good start on something, but it’s awful leaky: there could be many causes that give me memories of things I have not personally lived through, (we all have those sorts of “memories” to varying strengths/degrees) I can deal with them and move on, knowing that that I have a whole repository of these “memories” that will work automatically because trying to think about what I am thinking about is a rabbit hole I’d rather stay out of tonight, thank-you-very-much!

 

[Gene2memE]

I provide a reasonable inference that explains P1 & P2 with P3 and the C is what is logical based on P3.

No you didn't. You provided an assertion "God can X". There's no basis for this assertion supported in the previous premises, and (once again) it only works if you assume your conclusion is true.

We can talk about what the probability is that P3 is true, but if we do that then I'm going to need something to compare P3 to.

Cool. Show me the probability calculations for the premise "some God or Gods exist". How do you determine the number of events and number of outcomes?

P3 is evidence that the C is True. Further, C is the logical understanding of P3.

P3 is an assertion.

You could rephrase it, to make it not an assertion. However, at that point this really just becomes sophistry.

But from that PoV you are ignoring P1 and possibly P2.

They're also almost completely irrelevant. You could simply rephrase and drop 1 and 2 without any harm to the syllogism:

P1. A deity would know what experiences I need to have, for me to believe that it exists
P2. I have had experiences that make me believe in a deity
C. Therefore, a deity exists

It's still a terrible argument, but its better than the one originally presented.

 

[Gene2memE]

If I DID own a car, I'd have a key and it would be in my driveway and I'd have insurance.
Sure enough, the key get's me to work on time, so I think the car must exist as well.
And the snow piled in my driveway is shaped like a car. That's another clue.

P1: Car owners have car keys, driveways and insurance
P2: Car owners get to work on time
P3: Car owners have car-shaped snow piles in the driveways on snowy days
P4: I possess a car key, a driveway and insurance, I get to work on time and the snow piled in my driveway is shaped like a car.
C: I own a car

At no point do I assume the existence of your car in the premises.

 

[Gene2memE]

I'd also argue that the original argument runs into two very strong counters in both formulations of the Argument from Divine Hiddeness and the narrow formulation of the Argument from Inconsistent Revelation.

Theodore Drange's version of the problem of nonbelief would seem an appropriate thing to bring up at this juncture:

1. If God exists, God:
   1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
   2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
   3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
   4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).

The above was pinched from Wikipedia

 

[All Becomes New]

This proposition is carrying a heavy load, (one of us should flesh this out before some smart-[bless and do not curse x3] does it for you

What is unclear about what I mean?

I search for DNA memory, first hit

Interesting, but doesn't disprove anything I have said.

Getting real close to “predestination” here...you gonna be good with that?

I'm a Calvinist, so I am good with the idea of predestination.

Seems like a lot of work that doesn’t need to be done if He’s going to “take you as you are”. Yes, your God is omniscient (for right-here, right-now), trying to “understand it from God’s perspective” is somewhat presumptuous, at least it is for me.

Not sure why you think I am thinking from God's perspective. I'm thinking from my perspective on an explanation about God.

I understand if this is a first draft...it’s a good start on something, but it’s awful leaky: there could be many causes that give me memories of things I have not personally lived through, (we all have those sorts of “memories” to varying strengths/degrees) I can deal with them and move on, knowing that that I have a whole repository of these “memories” that will work automatically because trying to think about what I am thinking about is a rabbit hole I’d rather stay out of tonight, thank-you-very-much!

I think we are thinking about similar thought patterns. I ascribe these to God. Not sure what you ascribe them to.

 

[All Becomes New]

No you didn't. You provided an assertion "God can X". There's no basis for this assertion supported in the previous premises, and (once again) it only works if you assume your conclusion is true.

Correct. I perceive God to be real, which means I take my experiences as evidence that God is real.

Cool. Show me the probability calculations for the premise "some God or Gods exist". How do you determine the number of events and number of outcomes?

All we have to do here is look at how probable the Resurrection is.

P3 is an assertion.

It's also an explanation.

You could rephrase it, to make it not an assertion. However, at that point this really just becomes sophistry.

Most premises are more or less assertions, correct?

They're also almost completely irrelevant. You could simply rephrase and drop 1 and 2 without any harm to the syllogism:

P1. A deity would know what experiences I need to have, for me to believe that it exists
P2. I have had experiences that make me believe in a deity
C. Therefore, a deity exists

It's still a terrible argument, but its better than the one originally presented.

It's simply the opposite of divine hiddeness.

 

[All Becomes New]

I'd also argue that the original argument runs into two very strong counters in both formulations of the Argument from Divine Hiddeness and the narrow formulation of the Argument from Inconsistent Revelation.

Theodore Drange's version of the problem of nonbelief would seem an appropriate thing to bring up at this juncture:

1. If God exists, God:
   1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
   2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
   3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
   4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).

The above was pinched from Wikipedia

I would contend with P1 by saying what God wants is not always the same as what God does because God acts out of His character of being Holy and anything that does not fit God being Holy is not something God would do. So God desires that all would be saved, but He does not Will that all are saved. So God's desires and God's Will are two different things.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'd also argue that the original argument runs into two very strong counters in both formulations of the Argument from Divine Hiddeness and the narrow formulation of the Argument from Inconsistent Revelation.

Theodore Drange's version of the problem of nonbelief would seem an appropriate thing to bring up at this juncture:

1. If God exists, God:
   1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
   2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
   3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
   4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).

The above was pinched from Wikipedia

Where did 1.1 come from? Who says that if God exists, God wants all humans to believe God exists before they die?

Perfectly Good and Loving God according to whose definition of these things?

 

[Pommer]

Where did 1.1 come from? Who says that if God exists, God wants all humans to believe God exists before they die?

Why the Bible then?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

1. My experiences are something I don't know/can't predict
2. I know things in my experiences that seem like things I shouldn't know/predict
3. God can know/predict what experiences I need to have in order that it would show me God exists
4. God provides the experiences I need to know that God exists
5. Therefore, God exists

Well, this is of course the argument that atheists make for the nonexistence of God.
If God really existed, He would want us to be saved and (your point 4) he would know exactly what experiences we need to know that He exists.
The problem is, it's only Christians who have such experiences.
People of other religions have experiences from their gods, thus proving that their religion is true and Christianity is not.
And atheists have no experiences, proving that God does not exist (because if he did, they would have had such experiences, as asserted by your points 3 and 4).

 

[SkyWriting]

P1: Car owners have car keys, driveways and insurance
P2: Car owners get to work on time
P3: Car owners have car-shaped snow piles in the driveways on snowy days
P4: I possess a car key, a driveway and insurance, I get to work on time and the snow piled in my driveway is shaped like a car.
C: I own a car

At no point do I assume the existence of your car in the premises.

The same goes for this.

3. God can know/predict what experiences I need to have in order that it would show me God exists

This describes a test. The test is "Evidence should be possible if God exists."

 

[All Becomes New]

Well, this is of course the argument that atheists make for the nonexistence of God.
If God really existed, He would want us to be saved and (your point 4) he would know exactly what experiences we need to know that He exists.
The problem is, it's only Christians who have such experiences.
People of other religions have experiences from their gods, thus proving that their religion is true and Christianity is not.
And atheists have no experiences, proving that God does not exist (because if he did, they would have had such experiences, as asserted by your points 3 and 4).

AFAIK, atheists experience much of the same things in my P1 and P2. The difference is in the interpretation of those things.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No you didn't. You provided an assertion "God can X". There's no basis for this assertion supported in the previous premises, and (once again) it only works if you assume your conclusion is true.



Cool. Show me the probability calculations for the premise "some God or Gods exist". How do you determine the number of events and number of outcomes?



P3 is an assertion.

You could rephrase it, to make it not an assertion. However, at that point this really just becomes sophistry.



They're also almost completely irrelevant. You could simply rephrase and drop 1 and 2 without any harm to the syllogism:

P1. A deity would know what experiences I need to have, for me to believe that it exists
P2. I have had experiences that make me believe in a deity
C. Therefore, a deity exists

It's still a terrible argument, but its better than the one originally presented.

Not just terrible but invalid.

P1. A -> B
P2. B
C. Ergo, A

Classic error.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, this is of course the argument that atheists make for the nonexistence of God.
If God really existed, He would want us to be saved and (your point 4) he would know exactly what experiences we need to know that He exists.
The problem is, it's only Christians who have such experiences.
People of other religions have experiences from their gods, thus proving that their religion is true and Christianity is not.
And atheists have no experiences, proving that God does not exist (because if he did, they would have had such experiences, as asserted by your points 3 and 4).

Unless there is only one God, which is what we believe.

 

[Kenny'sID]

5. Therefore, God exists

Some more thoughts..

The universe and all in it are here, and until anyone can show me a creator doesn't exist, it's perfectly logical to assume he does.

Where is the logic in assuming it all just happened?

And since no one actually saw the beginning, that is all either Atheist or Christian can do is assume.

Many Atheists today, after falling short with their logical explanations, choose the "I dont know" option because its safe, and presents at least the possibility there is no God. Why would they want to do that? In order to avoid the possibility of the death and destruction that comes with God.

For me it's much safer to logically conclude there is a God, and risk the possibility of being wrong, than to assume there is no God and risk being wrong.