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

[cvanwey]

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

I've mentioned this topic to you, at least two or three other times now. But you have yet to acknowledge it?

"External world skepticism" - There exists an infinite number of plausible sources to account for your apprehensions/conclusions/inferences/perceptions/justifications. By what mechanism did you conclude God, and God alone?

Now to address your points:

1. Therefore God? Do you at least admit this given point is the argument from ignorance fallacy at work here?
2. Same answer as answer 1.
3. Is it possible you are merely accepting the hits and ignoring the misses, because you want this specific conclusion to be true?
4. Same as answer 3.
5. Conformation bias - 'the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.'

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's telling that Pascal's original formulation starts with "If there is a God...".

Is that all?!

No wonder no one was eager to jump on the question of what the problem was. See post 43.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You haven't? Well, never mind. @Gene2memE has already done an excellent job of setting the problem out.
I'll just add that even many Christians think it's a very poor apologetic, since "I decided to believe in you, God, since it seemed the most logical option," doesn't sound very likely to convince God to let you in to heaven.

Seems to me, its just what I thought it was from the start...a cop out, catch all.

Maybe I should start using such nonsense to avoid debate. I mean, seriously, if there is no God which seems to be the crux of the matter, then this whole thread along with many that Atheists bring up are null and void. Yet we all do the normal thing for the sake of the argument and assume there is a God, instead of going on about Pascals wager in order to avoid commenting on any given topic about God.

 

[All Becomes New]

I've mentioned this topic to you, at least two or three other times now. But you have yet to acknowledge it?

"External world skepticism" - There exists an infinite number of plausible sources to account for your apprehensions/conclusions/inferences/perceptions/justifications. By what mechanism did you conclude God, and God alone?

Now to address your points:

1. Therefore God? Do you at least admit this given point is the argument from ignorance fallacy at work here?
2. Same answer as answer 1.
3. Is it possible you are merely accepting the hits and ignoring the misses, because you want this specific conclusion to be true?
4. Same as answer 3.
5. Conformation bias - 'the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.'

I don't see any value to "External world skepticism" at ALL. Reason for this is that it's altogether unpractical to think in these terms. So while it might be POSSIBLE for a demon to be controlling everything, it's not PRAGMATIC for me to act as though it is the case since I wouldn't have any evidence of it at all.

1. Instead of thinking about the conclusion of the Premise, how about you think about the Premise instead?
2. Same as 1.
3. There are a lot of things that are possible. The question is never what is possible, but what is probable.
4. Same as 3.
5. Not if you grant me 1-4.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't see any value to "External world skepticism" at ALL. Reason for this is that it's altogether unpractical to think in these terms. So while it might be POSSIBLE for a demon to be controlling everything, it's not PRAGMATIC for me to act as though it is the case since I wouldn't have any evidence of it at all.

When did I state demons are controlling your thoughts? There exists an infinite number of plausible source causes. Many of which, would not involve the assertions of the 'supernatural'. Why do you immediately assume the extraordinary alone? How did you rule out all other plausible source reasons?

1. Instead of thinking about the conclusion of the Premise, how about you think about the Premise instead?

How about you instead merely address that your current drawn conclusion demonstrates an argument from ignorance fallacy?

2. Same as 1.
3. There are a lot of things that are possible. The question is never what is possible, but what is probable.
4. Same as 3.
5. Not if you grant me 1-4.

Are you accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses?

Let's start with prayer. In a former response, you stated you know God interacts, due to answered prayer. But when I started to address prayer, you ignore my points.

 

[All Becomes New]

When did I state demons are controlling your thoughts? There exists an infinite number of plausible source causes. Many of which, would not involve the assertions of the 'supernatural'. Why do you immediately assume the extraordinary alone? How did you rule out all other plausible source reasons?

Probably because that is what was in one of the links you gave me.

How about you instead merely address that your current drawn conclusion demonstrates an argument from ignorance fallacy?

I can only talk about what is probable to me. Don't believe my experience, fine, but that doesn't say anything about my experience.

Are you accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses?

No, I am not ignoring them. They just happen far less frequently then the hits do. Before I became a committed Christian I rationalized that this happened because I was an Intuitive Introvert in terms of Jungian psychology.

Let's start with prayer. In a former response, you stated you know God interacts, due to answered prayer. But when I started to address prayer, you ignore my points.

Because your story of how you prayed was inconsistent. Not sure what you expect me to say about that. You say on the one hand you felt you were talking to yourself when praying and at other times you say you prayed the same way I did. The problem is that I don't pray feeling like I am talking to myself.

 

[cvanwey]

Probably because that is what was in one of the links you gave me.

You look to be avoiding the meat of my point....

Again, if there exists a great many number of sources for which you have to choose from, why is YHWH the only possible one of all these?

I can only talk about what is probable to me. Don't believe my experience, fine, but that doesn't say anything about my experience.

I have absolutely no doubt you have experiences. That is not my concern. My question is...

How were you able to conclude YHWH, as asked above? How were you able to successfully rule out many other plausible choices?

On the flip side, I have had experiences, which appear "unexplainable". Instead of making a final assertion, or a positive claim, I just state "I have no explanation".

No, I am not ignoring them. They just happen far less frequently then the hits do. Before I became a committed Christian I rationalized that this happened because I was an Intuitive Introvert in terms of Jungian psychology.

Can we test this then? You state God answers your prayers. You state this is one of the main reasons you know God is in communication with you. Does He regularly answer your prayer requests? If so, care to share?

Because your story of how you prayed was inconsistent. Not sure what you expect me to say about that. You say on the one hand you felt you were talking to yourself when praying and at other times you say you prayed the same way I did. The problem is that I don't pray feeling like I am talking to myself.

First of all, I do not think this is why you are avoiding this topic. And secondly, I seem to remember conveying that I prayed for years, and after a while, started to realize that maybe I'm talking to myself, or that God exists, and is ignoring me.

 

[All Becomes New]

You look to be avoiding the meat of my point....

Again, if there exists a great many number of sources for which you have to choose from, why is YHWH the only possible one of all these?

Because rationally, I do not have another explanation. We can talk about the nature of these experiences if you want. Perhaps that would be helpful.

I have absolutely no doubt you have experiences. That is not my concern. My question is...

How were you able to conclude YHWH, as asked above? How were you able to successfully rule out many other plausible choices?

I would say that because these experiences are something that I cannot explain rationally, that is by means that are NOT supernatural, that I would have to look at non-rational explanations, like the supernatural. YHWH is an explanation. The Holy Spirit moving through my thought process is an explanation. I don't know what other explanation has as much explanatory power as that explanation. Could it be Alla instead? Well, I don't think Alla relates to his creation in the same way. Could it be any number of other gods in polytheism? I suppose, but polytheism has plenty of other problems with it such as no one god being in charge.

On the flip side, I have had experiences, which appear "unexplainable". Instead of making a final assertion, or a positive claim, I just state "I have no explanation".

Wouldn't it be better to try and arrive at AN explanation? Even in the case that it is technically "untenable" from your own perspective, it seems taking AN explanation is better than being left with NO explanation. In short, take the best explanation you can at the time and adapt it as necessary if you find out more. There have been things I have experienced that have totally rocked my world and I believed, or rather, I entertained some possibilities I no longer hold to, but that doesn't change the fact that those experiences surely rocked my world at the time. So I don't discount the gravity of what it was because I have a different explanation now.

Can we test this then? You state God answers your prayers. You state this is one of the main reasons you know God is in communication with you. Does He regularly answer your prayer requests? If so, care to share?

I'm not sure this will have any impact on you believing that God answers prayers, but I will try and explain it to you.

I don't ALWAYS have these types of experiences. In fact, they are not experiences that happen to me as often as I would like, but they more or less go like this: I will be in thought or in the middle of something and a particular worry about what I am doing or what I am thinking about will enter into my mind. Naturally, because I am a Christian and I believe in the Christian God, I decided in my mind to "Give it to God" so to speak. What I have noticed over a period of time, meaning, I didn't have this same pattern at all times, is that when I "Give it to God" it seems that there is a VERY top heavy percentage that these exact things I seem to be worrying about "work out" completely perfectly. This is something that happens somewhat regularly. It might be something small, like getting through a traffic light, or it could be something bigger, like missing my rent. I would be happy to try and come up with a few examples to make the point. The point is that there is no reason why these things should work out, but they do.

First of all, I do not think this is why you are avoiding this topic. And secondly, I seem to remember conveying that I prayed for years, and after a while, started to realize that maybe I'm talking to myself, or that God exists, and is ignoring me.

Well, what would you expect from me? If I really experience things that I believe are an answer from God, and you tell me, "I prayed just like you" on the one hand and say on the other, "I felt like I was talking to myself when I prayed" I just don't know how you expect me to have much relevant to say about it. I've already said, "You are probably not praying the same way I am" but when I say this, you seem to reject it. So I'm not really sure what else you expect me to say about it.

 

[cvanwey]

Because rationally, I do not have another explanation. We can talk about the nature of these experiences if you want. Perhaps that would be helpful.

I would say that because these experiences are something that I cannot explain rationally, that is by means that are NOT supernatural, that I would have to look at non-rational explanations, like the supernatural. YHWH is an explanation. The Holy Spirit moving through my thought process is an explanation. I don't know what other explanation has as much explanatory power as that explanation. Could it be Alla instead? Well, I don't think Alla relates to his creation in the same way. Could it be any number of other gods in polytheism? I suppose, but polytheism has plenty of other problems with it such as no one god being in charge.

Wouldn't it be better to try and arrive at AN explanation? Even in the case that it is technically "untenable" from your own perspective, it seems taking AN explanation is better than being left with NO explanation. In short, take the best explanation you can at the time and adapt it as necessary if you find out more. There have been things I have experienced that have totally rocked my world and I believed, or rather, I entertained some possibilities I no longer hold to, but that doesn't change the fact that those experiences surely rocked my world at the time. So I don't discount the gravity of what it was because I have a different explanation now

Then without sounding disrespectful, do you see how I can rubber stamp your response as the argument from ignorance fallacy?

If you have a situation happen, for which you cannot explain, does God win by default? You need to demonstrate it was indeed God whom caused it, to then logically assert a positive claim that it was God... Otherwise, you do not know of the cause.

I'm not sure this will have any impact on you believing that God answers prayers, but I will try and explain it to you.

I don't ALWAYS have these types of experiences. In fact, they are not experiences that happen to me as often as I would like, but they more or less go like this: I will be in thought or in the middle of something and a particular worry about what I am doing or what I am thinking about will enter into my mind. Naturally, because I am a Christian and I believe in the Christian God, I decided in my mind to "Give it to God" so to speak. What I have noticed over a period of time, meaning, I didn't have this same pattern at all times, is that when I "Give it to God" it seems that there is a VERY top heavy percentage that these exact things I seem to be worrying about "work out" completely perfectly. This is something that happens somewhat regularly. It might be something small, like getting through a traffic light, or it could be something bigger, like missing my rent. I would be happy to try and come up with a few examples to make the point. The point is that there is no reason why these things should work out, but they do.

I still think you may be accepting the hits and ignoring the misses. Sorry.

It's a no-loose type of situation you look to have created for yourself.

You pray to God. If you feel you receive an answer, you give God the glory. If you do not receive any answer, you rationalize as to why He did not.

Well, what would you expect from me? If I really experience things that I believe are an answer from God, and you tell me, "I prayed just like you" on the one hand and say on the other, "I felt like I was talking to myself when I prayed" I just don't know how you expect me to have much relevant to say about it. I've already said, "You are probably not praying the same way I am" but when I say this, you seem to reject it. So I'm not really sure what else you expect me to say about it.

I've told you, on more than one occasion, that I prayed like you for years. And that it was only years later that I started to doubt. You asserted that this could not be possible, because if I had, I would feel I received a response from God.

 

[All Becomes New]

Then without sounding disrespectful, do you see how I can rubber stamp your response as the argument from ignorance fallacy?

If you have a situation happen, for which you cannot explain, does God win by default? You need to demonstrate it was indeed God whom caused it, to then logically assert a positive claim that it was God... Otherwise, you do not know of the cause.

I can't know with certainty it was God, if that is what you are asking. I can, however, make a logical inferrence as to what it was based on what I know about the universe. And God is something I know about who is said to answer prayers, so I have reason to believe it could be God.

I still think you may be accepting the hits and ignoring the misses. Sorry.

That's because you lack faith.

It's a no-loose type of situation you look to have created for yourself.

You pray to God. If you feel you receive an answer, you give God the glory. If you do not receive any answer, you rationalize as to why He did not.

You are assuming this is a regular thing I do. I don't do it all the time, only when I feel it. It is unpredictable in nature as to when I feel it, but when I do, it's almost always right. If you were interested in the Truth of the matter, you would ask for examples. But instead you are content with your unbelief.

I've told you, on more than one occasion, that I prayed like you for years. And that it was only years later that I started to doubt. You asserted that this could not be possible, because if I had, I would feel I received a response from God.

Well, you have conflicting ways you talk about it. You had faith at one point. You prayed God would contact you. You started to doubt that God was real. Then you felt like you were talking to yourself when you prayed. Is that right because I never heard you say it like that. In any case, I have a theory on why you once had faith, but no longer do. It's my theory on why people become Apostates. It's really rather simple. It's more or less that the idea that you once had of God got shattered, which lead to a "failed expectation" of what you believe about God which leads to losing faith and Apostatizing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Seems to me, its just what I thought it was from the start...a cop out, catch all.

Maybe I should start using such nonsense to avoid debate. I mean, seriously, if there is no God which seems to be the crux of the matter, then this whole thread along with many that Atheists bring up are null and void. Yet we all do the normal thing for the sake of the argument and assume there is a God, instead of going on about Pascals wager in order to avoid commenting on any given topic about God.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Christians who cite Pascal's Wager as a reasonable argument, as you did when you said "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," generally mean that it's a simple exercise in probability. Now I'm sure there are many reasons you believe in God, but that's the one you gave, so that's the one I'm addressing.

And the answer, as even some Christians see, is that this is an unconvincing argument; if the only reason you are believing in God is because it's a safe bet, God is probably not going to be impressed. He wants you to be a Christian because you love Him and have accepted the sacrifice of His Son, not because believing in Him offers a much better risk than not.

Which is one of the reasons why Pascal's Wager is nonsense, and why I am occasionally amused when I see Christians cite it.

 

[cvanwey]

I can't know with certainty it was God, if that is what you are asking.

Then you must accept that you are committing fallacious reasoning.

You are assuming this is a regular thing I do. I don't do it all the time, only when I feel it. It is unpredictable in nature as to when I feel it, but when I do, it's almost always right. If you were interested in the Truth of the matter, you would ask for examples. But instead you are content with your unbelief.

I do not need examples. Your many responses about this topic look quite clear. You pray to God. When you feel He answers, you give Him the glory. When you feel He does not answer, you make an excuse.

I'll ask you an alternative question... What is your metric for answered prayer? Do you have one? Can we test it in any measurable way?

Well, you have conflicting ways you talk about it. You had faith at one point. You prayed God would contact you. You started to doubt that God was real. Then you felt like you were talking to yourself when you prayed. Is that right because I never heard you say it like that. In any case, I have a theory on why you once had faith, but no longer do. It's my theory on why people become Apostates. It's really rather simple. It's more or less that the idea that you once had of God got shattered, which lead to a "failed expectation" of what you believe about God which leads to losing faith and Apostatizing.

I've already explained, ad nauseam, my position.

What is a reasonable expectation to have about God answering prayer?

 

[All Becomes New]

Then you must accept that you are committing fallacious reasoning.



I do not need examples. Your many responses about this topic look quite clear. You pray to God. When you feel He answers, you give Him the glory. When you feel He does not answer, you make an excuse.

I'll ask you an alternative question... What is your metric for answered prayer? Do you have one? Can we test it in any measurable way?



I've already explained, ad nauseam, my position.

What is a reasonable expectation to have about God answering prayer?

You've demonstrated to me that you do not care about my explanations of things because you are not considering what I have actually said. I'm not sure why I should answer any more of your questions if you don't actually care about my perspective on things. Sure, you can say this section of the forum is about challenging Christians, just know that no Christians actually have an obligation to answer you if you are not actually considering what the Christians are saying. Have I made myself clear?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I think Pascal's Wager "makes sense" if put in the right language, but it isn't something by itself that can actually "save" someone if that makes sense. I think it is useful for getting (some) skeptics to think about the idea of God, but it alone has no "saving power".

What is the right language into which it can be put?
Can you formulate Pascal's Wager in a way that it makes sense, and can still be called Pascal's Wager?
Remember, the Wager is a fairly simple argument, and has been shown to be a fallacious one. If you change it too much, it becomes a different apologetic, and not Pascal's Wager at all.

 

[All Becomes New]

What is the right language into which it can be put?
Can you formulate Pascal's Wager in a way that it makes sense, and can still be called Pascal's Wager?
Remember, the Wager is a fairly simple argument, and has been shown to be a fallacious one. If you change it too much, it becomes a different apologetic, and not Pascal's Wager at all.

I'll do my best. It goes something like this:

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I just caught this as I went to check as per my last post in this thread.
Now, notable, is that what people of other religions have that atheists do not is a belief in the supernatural. In this way, Theists and Polytheists believe something that atheists do not, namely, in the existence of the supernatural.

Yes. But since there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural, we don't need to worry about it. Until such time as evidence turns up, of course, if it ever does.

Further, I would say in some sense, science is beginning to find things that may allude to a supernatural experience of mind, namely, the double slit experiment. Science just classifies this differently than the supernatural.

With good reason. Saying "there is something happening that we do not understand" is not at all the same thing as saying that the supernatural exists.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes. But since there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural, we don't need to worry about it. Until such time as evidence turns up, of course, if it ever does.


With good reason. Saying "there is something happening that we do not understand" is not at all the same thing as saying that the supernatural exists.

How do you suppose scientists would test for the supernatural, if they indeed were allowed to peruse that avenue?

 

[Pommer]

How do you suppose scientists would test for the supernatural, if they indeed were allowed to peruse that avenue?

No one yet knows what dark matter is...maybe that’s “heaven”?

 

[cvanwey]

You've demonstrated to me that you do not care about my explanations of things because you are not considering what I have actually said. I'm not sure why I should answer any more of your questions if you don't actually care about my perspective on things. Sure, you can say this section of the forum is about challenging Christians, just know that no Christians actually have an obligation to answer you if you are not actually considering what the Christians are saying. Have I made myself clear?

This is now the forth time you have threatened to ignore me. Do as you will.

I've told you prior, we can trade anecdotal responses all day long. You did not have much to say about it....

You claim God answers your prayers, I claim He never does. Okay...

Hence, I would like to know if there exists a true metric to determine if a prayer has truly been answered??? I've examined clinical studies. They seem to conclude there is not one.

What is your metric for determining answered prayer? Do you have one? I somehow really doubt it?.?.?.

So please, either answer post #52, or don't. "Have I made myself clear?"

 

[All Becomes New]

No one yet knows what dark matter is...maybe that’s “heaven”?

I was actually baiting @InterestedAtheist to give a realistic answer.