What Convinced you God Exists?

[mama2one]

or something other than one of these?

faith:

the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.”

 

[Lion IRC]

So when he puts words in atheists mouths that is ok right?

Im talking about 'verballing' someone. Deliberately misrepresenting them personally.
Paraphrasing atheists/atheism by way of generalization - stating what you honestly think are their views is not putting words into the mouth of a specific individual member of this forum. (We have a quote function and TOU to help us avoid misrepresentation of individuals.)

There's a big difference between;

Me : "when atheists say God isnt real it's their version of wishful thinking"
&
Me : "Clizby WampusCat says God isn't real because of wishful thinking"

He does this every post.

I dont agree.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why?

I thought it was rather obvious.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you think epistemology is?

Ok, let me put it another way. Do you go through the mental processes of justifying your beliefs in order to make your decisions throughout the day, or do you 'just do' stuff?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Because no additional options have been presented. Nor can there be.

It is up to you to demonstrate that "nor can there be" is true.

This is how deductive elimination works. You cannot place some "provisional empty placeholder" for what you cannot produce yourself. If you're taking a test, you cannot answer all the questions with "other," and then fail to specify. It's a deliberate cop-out on your part.

All I want you to do is justify that your three options are the only three options. That is not for me to do since this is your claim.

Because I assumed you were intelligent enough to recognize it outright! This is what I have to deal with here! If I'm not downright filthy condescending towards you 24/7, you'll just bottom-out on me when I give you credit for the brains you have.

*inhale*

A (finite) material cause necessarily accounting for our (finite) material universe will necessarily require yet another finite material cause before that--and then another to account for that one. . .and then another to account for that one, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum. Again, it's nothing more than a secular version of "Turtles All The Way Down."

You have not demonstrated why this has to be the case it has nothing to do with my lack of intelligence.

Because you made nothing more than an empty assertion. You cannot point to any specific errors in my logic to show it is unsound.

You always get this backwards. This is a fallacy. I don't have to demonstrate your argument is unsound, you have to demonstrate that your argument is sound which you have not done.

No tricks. I'm playing with cards face-up on the table here.

Then answer the question please.

Again, you're just playing stupid to weasel out of it. I'm giving you credit for the brains you have. Deductive elimination isn't rocket science at all here. It's extraordinary evidence due to its parsimony. You don't need "more evidence," because it's a proof; not evidence.

You failed to address my point again.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's ok because I'm totally open to correction. Atheists are evasive by nature. It's literally like herding cats. They won't outright admit to anything and must be aggressively cornered.

Just shut up please.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

faith:

the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.”

This definition can be used to believe in anything. It says assurance of things hoped for. I can believe in bigfoot if I want as long as I hope they are real. I can believe in Allah with this definition as well. So it is less than believing in what cannot be proved. It is believing without any evidence whatsoever. Hope is not evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Im talking about 'verballing' someone. Deliberately misrepresenting them personally.
Paraphrasing atheists/atheism by way of generalization - stating what you honestly think are their views is not putting words into the mouth of a specific individual member of this forum. (We have a quote function and TOU to help us avoid misrepresentation of individuals.)

There's a big difference between;

Me : "when atheists say God isnt real it's their version of wishful thinking"
&
Me : "Clizby WampusCat says God isn't real because of wishful thinking"



I dont agree.

Paul has said to me many times that I (me specifically) hate logic. This is a specific misrepresentation of what I think and he is putting words into my mouth or brain.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I thought it was rather obvious.

Then why not answer the question?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok, let me put it another way. Do you go through the mental processes of justifying your beliefs in order to make your decisions throughout the day, or do you 'just do' stuff?

I am not sure what process you are talking about. How I determine what is true depends on the claim and how the answer affects me. For example, at work if one of my direct reports tells me they got a dog last weekend. I will believe them without any more evidence than their say so. The claim is mundane and if it is wrong does not affect me at all. If my direct report tells me that something will cost $30,000 to fix I will want more evidence that it is broken and the cost is $30,000. This affects how well I do my job and is more important to have accurate information. And if they say they saw a ghost I will need a lot more evidence to believe what they saw was a ghost and not something else.

Studying epistemology and how we know things should be taught in schools at a young age. Thinking about what is good evidence for believe in different situations makes it more likely you will believe more true things than false.

 

[mama2one]

It says assurance of things hoped for.

there ARE only 3 things that last: faith, hope, & love
1 Corinthians 13:13


we can not see air, yet we still breathe
I can not see God, yet have faith to trust In God

 

[Mark Quayle]

This definition can be used to believe in anything. It says assurance of things hoped for. I can believe in bigfoot if I want as long as I hope they are real. I can believe in Allah with this definition as well. So it is less than believing in what cannot be proved. It is believing without any evidence whatsoever. Hope is not evidence.

Ha, wow!

'Hoped for' is literally in the Greek, 'expected'. It is a reference to a specific thing, not just any old thing the person may believe in. It is also something caused by the Spirit of God, not something ginned up by just any person.

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Truth is the one luxury theists can’t afford.

Truth, like, "Existence magically came about all by itself!"

I believe that there is a reason or explanation for our existence. The fact that I do not know what that reason is does not mean a god did it. I don't know of any atheist or scientist that claims magic had anything to do with it.

No. I added the word, 'magic'.

Why?

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Truth, like, "Existence magically came about all by itself!"
I said 'magic' because it is the only way Existence can come about without causation. And it is simply insulting to reason to believe that the chain of causation can infinitely regress. And yes, "I don't know" ignores the fact that from the beginning, with or without science, reason shows only one sensible choice concerning the cause of Existence. The question for the Cause of Existence screams for attention, and atheists look away, like, "boring", the whole while claiming to be the ones who can solve it by science. And meanwhile, as though they are the only ones who love science want to claim that those who answer the question by Omnipotence (i.e. First Cause With Intent) think that they have no reason to study beginnings.

I should probably not say that Atheists actually believe in magic. But if they claim Christians believe in magic, (and they do, as though Christians do not believe in science), then Christians have equal reason to say that Atheists believe in it too.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

there ARE only 3 things that last: faith, hope, & love
1 Corinthians 13:13


we can not see air, yet we still breathe
I can not see God, yet have faith to trust In God

I can test that air exists and have an extremely high confidence that it does. My breathing is actually good evidence. Not so for God. Hoping God exists is not evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ha, wow!

'Hoped for' is literally in the Greek, 'expected'. It is a reference to a specific thing, not just any old thing the person may believe in. It is also something caused by the Spirit of God, not something ginned up by just any person.

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

I don't see how changing the word to expect changes anything. I believe to be true what I expect to be true. This is also bad epistemology. Even if it is only a reference to God, how does that make it any better?

On Biblehub I only found one translation (GWT) that used the word expect. All others translated it as hoped for.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Truth, like, "Existence magically came about all by itself!"
I said 'magic' because it is the only way Existence can come about without causation. And it is simply insulting to reason to believe that the chain of causation can infinitely regress. And yes, "I don't know" ignores the fact that from the beginning, with or without science, reason shows only one sensible choice concerning the cause of Existence. The question for the Cause of Existence screams for attention, and atheists look away, like, "boring", the whole while claiming to be the ones who can solve it by science. And meanwhile, as though they are the only ones who love science want to claim that those who answer the question by Omnipotence (i.e. First Cause With Intent) think that they have no reason to study beginnings.

I should probably not say that Atheists actually believe in magic. But if they claim Christians believe in magic, (and they do, as though Christians do not believe in science), then Christians have equal reason to say that Atheists believe in it too.

When I say I don't know the cause of the universe I am invoking magic somehow?

 

[Mark Quayle]

When I say I don't know the cause of the universe I am invoking magic somehow?

Yeah. You know that somehow it was caused, ignoring the fact that it was, obviously, caused by First Cause, as inference by the law of causation demands. So my only 'guess' (yes, sarcastically) is that you believe Existence simply 'magically' IS.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see how changing the word to expect changes anything. I believe to be true what I expect to be true. This is also bad epistemology. Even if it is only a reference to God, how does that make it any better?

On Biblehub I only found one translation (GWT) that used the word expect. All others translated it as hoped for.

If indeed it is evidence, then it is not bad epistemology. You are saying it is not, which is something you don't know.

You can't know whether the things you can see (or reason to be there) are the only good evidence. You are attempting to discuss what is beyond you to comprehend.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can test that air exists and have an extremely high confidence that it does. My breathing is actually good evidence. Not so for God. Hoping God exists is not evidence.

You simply can't know that. The fact that you can't see the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. It is of a kind that you have no access to.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yeah. You know that somehow it was caused, ignoring the fact that it was, obviously, caused by First Cause, as inference by the law of causation demands. So my only 'guess' (yes, sarcastically) is that you believe Existence simply 'magically' IS.

You need to show that the first cause was some intelligent being or a god. You have not done that. I am not invoking magic. I am simply saying I don't know what the first cause was it could be natural or not.