Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[Trailblazer]

So now you can answer my question...?

No, because I am not a student of the Bible so I only know enough to be dangerous.
I know my limits.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You've got the order wrong. In science and all critical thought, conclusions are derived from the evidence, not the other way around.

It should, but not in biology. Other fields of science, such as archaeology and SETI-based astronomy are willing to recognize & attribute the source of even slightly complex patterns exhibiting function as arising from intelligence.
Not so with the extremely complex systems found in living organisms.

The conclusion explains the evidence….

if that were so, there’d be no “explanatory deficits” that Gerd Müller keeps highlighting.

In the biological-related sciences, assumptions reign supreme.

For example: evolution of the eye…. Over 13 yrs ago, Eugenie Scott, director of NCSE, stated that the eye took around 100,000,000 years to evolve…

But with more discoveries of studying fossils from the Chengjiang formation in 2017, researchers surmised that the compound eyes of those creatures, arising suddenly in the Cambrian Explosion, provided these organisms with exceptional visual acuity.

Well, with presupposing speculations to make eye evolution fit the facts, 100 million years was reduced to 364 thousand. From trilobites to anomalocaris to Fuxianhuia protensa…across different unrelated species, too, I guess.

I see an agenda being pursued here, at all costs.

So long, my cousin.

 

[samtonga43]

No, because I am not a student of the Bible so I only know enough to be dangerous.
I know my limits.

But now you realize the importance of context, so your opinions are not quite as 'dangerous'.

 

[samtonga43]

It's a personal thing. Maybe one day you will find out or experience something that will change your mind .. maybe not.

I was an atheist for many years. Critical thinking, logic, rationality were the three components of my triune god.

I am now a Christian. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are now my Three-in-One.

To me, as to Anselm, God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.

 

[joelr]

No. The OP claimed there was no proof God exists, and I said it depends upon what you count as proof. Then I said you couldn't prove God anyway, because to prove God was true you'd have to prove truth was. I said this knowing that truth could not be proven true in order to make the point that God isn't something you prove or believe in because of proofs.

Its something you believe and then based upon that belief determine what you can about it. God is an axiom not a result, despite what alchemy people might claim about constructing proofs of God. They might claim there are ontologies or other ees to prove God exists, but God's lack of definable characteristics precludes it. There can be no proof and no unproof.

Unless God is math Godel doesn't factor in to this.
A theistic God is defined. Scripture defines the God and theologians make attempts as well. The Gods of scripture can be demonstrated and defined. They have not made any appearances.
Theism can be inferred as well and there is only evidence of probabilities playing out as they should.

 

[joelr]

I’m sorry you went to all that trouble. Most of it is nothing but conjecture, and opinions.

No it's the fossil record and record of Mesopotamian myths. Actual evidence.

And a general unawareness of the veracity of what 1 John5:19 states…
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.

https://biblehub.com/1_john/5-19.htm

Those are myths. You have to demonstrate the religion is real. Satan is an OT agent of Yahweh who was changed to enemy of mankind after the Persian occupation. They had a devil at eternal war with their God and humanity. The Revelation myth is also form Persia. So we see the stories in older cultures. Evidence of syncretism. Satan is also a myth.

I see the truth of it every day! When I’m on here (RF) and read the variety of opposing POV’s on the same subjects, my appreciation for what I’ve been taught, grows.

Opposing views do not demonstrate a fictional devil exists. Except a metaphorical version in yourself for thinking everyone should think exactly like you or it's the fault of a demon from the underworld. Why people would believe such fiction still today is bizarre. But the part about all opposing views are just Satan is sort of oppressive facism.

i think most Bible believers credit God as being in control…but the Bible presents another view….which I think many aren’t aware of.

Yes most are not aware of, including you. Even though it's fiction Satan was an angel of Yahweh and agent of Yahweh. He delivered 2 plagues killing 70,00, for Yahweh. He tortured Job when Yahweh allowed him. He served as prosecutor with Yahweh as judge. He does the dirty work of the God. Of course he's evil?
But Yahweh was later upgraded by the NT, Aquinas, Agustine and so on to be tri-omni and supreme, yet you say a devil runs around and he cannot control it? One who worked for him (who he made evil by having him do evil things). So he's too weak to control an agent he made evil? Even as fiction it's bad.
But it's still a myth.

Now please debunk the fossil record for hominids rather than just saying it's opinion?


During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[26][8][27] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][28] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.[8



BTW, obsession with Satan is a modern invention. You are just running with the crowd.


Satan had minimal role in medieval Christian theology, but he frequently appeared as a recurring comedic stock character in late medieval mystery plays, in which he was portrayed as a comic relief figure who "frolicked, fell, and farted in the background".[138] Jeffrey Burton Russell describes the medieval conception of Satan as "more pathetic and repulsive than terrifying"[


During the Early Modern Period, Christians gradually began to regard Satan as increasingly powerful[145] and the fear of Satan's power became a dominant aspect of the worldview of Christians across Europe.[136][138] During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther taught that, rather than trying to argue with Satan, Christians should avoid temptation altogether by seeking out pleasant company;[148] Luther especially recommended music as a safeguard against temptation, since the Devil "cannot endure gaiety."[148] John Calvin repeated a maxim from Saint Augustine that "Man is like a horse, with either God or the devil as rider."[149]


Belief in Satan and demonic possession remains strong among Christians in the United States[
The early English settlers of North America, especially the Puritans of New England, believed that Satan "visibly and palpably" reigned in the New World.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You think it impossible to have a faith in something like "a god", because it can't be demonstrated to exist.

No, I don't think that. Billions have such faith without gods having been demonstrated.

You are just being vague and avoiding the issue. Does it include "scientific detection of God", or experiencing miracles first-hand .. or not?

The rules of critical thinking can be applied to all sensory apprehensions (evidence). If an intelligent designer manifests in nature, perhaps by suspending the known laws of nature (miracle), then that can be discerned empirically. For example, if a god answered a prayer and healed an amputated limb, the laws of critical thinking would allow us to conclude that a mysterious, extraordinary, unexplained event had occurred. Deciding if they arose from a supernatural agent would be an additional problem.

No it isn't. It is only "unjustified" if you want to take the stance of "I won't take anybody else's word for it. I must see it for myself".

Critical thinking does take that stand. That's the basic statement of skepticism, one of the most powerful and successful ideas ever to have occurred to man in his intellectual evolution.

I consider myself a "critical thinker" too, but I don't reject the existence of God due to lack of empirical proof.

Neither do I. I neither accept nor reject the existence of gods.

Where you violate the rules of critical thinking is when you accept the existence of a god lacking sufficient empirical support. I know that you're a thoughtful person, and probably pursue truth in earnest, reading and studying whatever you think will provide insight. But by itself, that's not critical thinking if doesn't get from evidence to sound conclusion, and as I have stated a few times, there is no sound argument that results, "therefore, God." If you can find one to falsify that claim, now would be a good time to do so. If you can't, perhaps you should consider the implications of that.

If I am correct, then it is never possible to get to that conclusion soundly, and if one does reach such a conclusion, there is a fallacy in his argument. I just pointed out another non sequitur in your position above. You've gone one step too far. Critical thinking will take one to agnostic atheism and only to agnostic atheism, that is, we do not know if a god exists or not. Picking either option as you have done (and as the strong atheist does when he insists that there is no god) is a leap of faith. It might behoove you focus on that idea rather than repeating that theists can think critically, and that theism isn't irrational according to the rules of evaluating evidence. It is for this very reason - that one cannot arrive at that conclusion using fallacy-free reasoning - that anybody that has done so has made a leap of faith. You need to rebut that, to show that sound argument that results in, "therefore God" that falsifies the claim that no such argument exists if you know and can demonstrate that it is incorrect, or accept the fact that whatever path one took to get to that conclusion, it wasn't valid reasoning. It was fallacious reasoning, and the conclusion is unsound.

how can you know what is going on in other people's heads?

I had written, "I have the same evidence as that which theists say they use to decide that there is a god," which I outlined. I know what evidence believers have offered in support of their theism and I know what they concluded from it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Satan was an angel of Yahweh and agent of Yahweh. He delivered 2 plagues killing 70,00, for Yahweh. He tortured Job when Yahweh allowed him..

As you say, G-d allows satan to commit evil .. in the same way that He allows us.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Critical thinking does take that stand. That's the basic statement of skepticism, one of the most powerful and successful ideas ever to have occurred to man in his intellectual evolution..

If one has a good reason to be skeptical, they will reject,,
That goes for anybody, and not just atheists.

Where you violate the rules of critical thinking is when you accept the existence of a god lacking sufficient empirical support..

That's not true. It is only true for people who have no good reason to believe that God exists.
That is not confined to empirical proof. You repeatedly suggest this, as you do not seem to have any other "mechanism" of evaluation.

..as I have stated a few times, there is no sound argument that results, "therefore, God." If you can find one to falsify that claim, now would be a good time to do so..

There is no "one liner" .. it is something that we have to evaluate for ourselves.
You evaluate as "I don't know", as there is not any empirical evidence that you are aware of.
I evaluate as I evaluate .. and is more than just "a whim" that God exists.

My experience as a Muslim has reinforced my belief .. it starts off as being "is life just a coincidence? NO" ..
..followed by "does Islam make any sense in the 45 years that I've been following it? Without a doubt!" .. "does it appear as though pious people that follow Islam are more fortunate in life than those that don't? It appears so." "if I chose to ignore my belief, would this help me? No"... and so on.

It is for this very reason - that one cannot arrive at that conclusion using fallacy-free reasoning - that anybody that has done so has made a leap of faith..

All you are saying is that one might be wrong in their evaluation.
You clearly prefer not to make any judgment, insisting on empirical proof until you do.

I had written, "I have the same evidence as that which theists say they use to decide that there is a god," which I outlined. I know what evidence believers have offered in support of their theism and I know what they concluded from it.

..and you are still no better off.

You seem to be saying that there is nothing anybody can tell you that will convince you that the existence of God is more likely than not.
Makes sense. We all have different experiences in life, and belief/disbelief is a personal thing.
You can insist that "critical thinking" cannot result in belief, but that implies that everybody who believes in God does so without using their intelligence .. your opinion only.

That is not to say that everybody who believes in God, does so through a process of "critical thinking".
It is very clear that many do not .. they merely follow tradition, or other intention.
Painting all believers with "one brush" is an error of judgment.
People can have good reason to believe in a similar way that people might not believe.

 

[F1fan]

It should, but not in biology. Other fields of science, such as archaeology and SETI-based astronomy are willing to recognize & attribute the source of even slightly complex patterns exhibiting function as arising from intelligence.
Not so with the extremely complex systems found in living organisms.



if that were so, there’d be no “explanatory deficits” that Gerd Müller keeps highlighting.

In the biological-related sciences, assumptions reign supreme.

For example: evolution of the eye…. Over 13 yrs ago, Eugenie Scott, director of NCSE, stated that the eye took around 100,000,000 years to evolve…

But with more discoveries of studying fossils from the Chengjiang formation in 2017, researchers surmised that the compound eyes of those creatures, arising suddenly in the Cambrian Explosion, provided these organisms with exceptional visual acuity.

Well, with presupposing speculations to make eye evolution fit the facts, 100 million years was reduced to 364 thousand. From trilobites to anomalocaris to Fuxianhuia protensa…across different unrelated species, too, I guess.

I see an agenda being pursued here, at all costs.

So long, my cousin.

Only a creationist would call 364,000 years "sudden" and evidence that a God is in intelligent designer.

 

[Jose Fly]

Only a creationist would call 364,000 years "sudden" and evidence that a God is in intelligent designer.

I feel like I'm beating the same drum over and over, but.....

He, like the other Jehovah's Witnesses at RF, are about as biased as can be when it comes to evolutionary biology. They all agree with this statement: "If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose."

Should I Believe in Evolution? (jw.org)

In my mind, that's pretty much all one needs to know when attempting to discuss evolution with a JW. More than likely, they're not really going to talk about the actual science of evolutionary biology, but instead will quite literally be defending their deeply-held religious beliefs and fighting to maintain a sense of purpose for their lives.

What's really odd though is how often JW's get rather upset when this is pointed out.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

He, like the other Jehovah's Witnesses at RF, are about as biased as can be when it comes to evolutionary biology. They all agree with this statement: "If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose."

A great example of an appeal to consequences fallacy: "Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences."

If one has a good reason to be skeptical, they will reject

We always have good reason to be skeptical.

It is only true for people who have no good reason to believe that God exists.

Nobody has a good reason to believe that a deity exists.

That is not confined to empirical proof. You repeatedly suggest this, as you do not seem to have any other "mechanism" of evaluation.

There is no other method for deciding what's true about the world that generates demonstrably correct conclusions..

"does it appear as though pious people that follow Islam are more fortunate in life than those that don't? It appears so."

Not to me. Frankly, very few of Abrahamic theists posting on RF who seem happy as humanists.

All you are saying is that one might be wrong in their evaluation. You clearly prefer not to make any judgment, insisting on empirical proof until you do.

Correct, although a better phrase than proof is "sufficient empirical justification."

You seem to be saying that there is nothing anybody can tell you that will convince you that the existence of God is more likely than not.

There is nothing I have seen or read that does that.

You can insist that "critical thinking" cannot result in belief, but that implies that everybody who believes in God does so without using their intelligence .. your opinion only.

No, what I am saying is that without critical thought, one accumulates incorrect ideas for lack of a mechanism to identify them.

That is not to say that everybody who believes in God, does so through a process of "critical thinking".

None do. I've explained why. You won't address the argument, and there is no point in my repeating it, so the matter is resolved. It always is following the last plausible, unrebutted claim. And with that, we are done before you repeat yourself again. Every debate will end that way - you making a claim, me explaining why it cannot be correct, and you repeating the claim without rebutting the rebuttal. Hopefully, you recall the courtroom analogy. When one side makes a plausible argument for guilt or innocence, and the other can't explain why it must be incorrect, but instead repeats rebutted claim unchanged, the trial is over and time for jury deliberation and a verdict.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A theistic God is defined. Scripture defines the God and theologians make attempts as well. The Gods of scripture can be demonstrated and defined. They have not made any appearances.
Theism can be inferred as well and there is only evidence of probabilities playing out as they should.

This is where we disagree most. The problem for gods is that they can be defined and therefore proven or disproven. God has none of the defining attributes of gods, and the first and most well known attribute of God is invisibility. The second is intangibility. A result is that God cannot be detected.

Unless God is math Godel doesn't factor in to this.

Any formal system of truth involving true/false logic is mathematical enough. If you change the context of any ifthen statement it can become false in the new context. Making it true will be more difficult, but I only need to show truth can be made false by a context change. Change the if, and you might change the then; and so logical propositions appear to have the same problem as number systems.

What is the meaning of life? Can you prove it? Probably not.

 

[Jose Fly]

A great example of an appeal to consequences fallacy: "Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences."

True, but IMO not all consequences are the same. I think there's a big difference between something like "If X is true, the team I like will lose" and "If X is true, my life will have no purpose".

If someone truly believes that if evolution is true then their life has no purpose, I honestly don't blame them at all for refusing to accept it as true under any circumstances. I mean come on....what's more important to most folks, the accuracy of evolutionary biology or their lives having purpose?

But as I mentioned before, what I don't understand is their reluctance to acknowledge this fact. Rather, they seem to want to pretend as if it has zero influence on their views about evolution, and instead they all just happen to be independent experts in genetics, paleontology, biology, etc. As I said in the thread I stared about this, it's like they're embarrassed to just say something like "I'm a Jehovah's Witness and we believe that if evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. So of course I don't believe evolution is true".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nobody has a good reason to believe that a deity exists..

I could just as easily say "Nobody has a good reason to believe that God doesn't exist", but it would be foolish to say that .. every person has their own reasons for making their own evaluations.

Your problem is that you assume that you know everything that a person could possibly know on the subject.

There is no other method for deciding what's true about the world that generates demonstrably correct conclusions..

The world?
God is not a part of "the world".

None do. I've explained why..

Yes, you have.
You have your version of "critical thinking", and I have mine.
My version does not depend on empirical evidence alone.


It would be impossible for anybody to believe in God with your version of "critical thinking".
..because as you very well know, God does not appear on TV or in the sky.
..yet God is closer to us than our jugular vein .. it's not all about that bit of meat in our bodies called "a brain" .. we have a conscience, and materialist ideologies cannot teach us everything there is to know.

You won't address the argument

..because we are not all materialists.
I cannot make an argument in a paragraph and show "therefore God" .. I can only attempt to explain why I believe. I don't expect anybody to be convinced by a few words .. I'm not that good with words anyway.

Believers do not need to prove their belief to anyone.
Anybody who does not believe in God has not found "any reason" to believe .. and that is all there is to it.

 

[joelr]

As you say, G-d allows satan to commit evil .. in the same way that He allows us.

First how is this relevant to any points raised last post?
Satan wasn't "allowed" to do evil in the story, he was SENT to do evil. He was a hitman for Yahweh. The angel of Yahweh was SENT to deliver a plague. Later th estory is repeated but they say Satan was sent.
Aside from the stories you have to give evidence a demon is real as well as this God of stories.

 

[joelr]

This is where we disagree most. The problem for gods is that they can be defined and therefore proven or disproven. God has none of the defining attributes of gods,

Yahweh has all the attributes of Gods. In her latest book Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion Francesca Stavrakopoulou goes over the many mentions of Yahwehs body parts. Many of them were changed when translated into English but the Hebrew is rich with descriptions of visitations from Yahweh. He isn't invisible. The NT authors were wrong.
John may say he's invisible but he also says Jesus is God. You can see Jesus. So God can (and does appear to Jacob) as a man anytime. Detectable.

She also goes over scripture of Inana from thousands of years earlier. It's all the same. Yahweh is exactly like all the Gods prior from that region.

and the first and most well known attribute of God is invisibility. The second is intangibility. A result is that God cannot be detected.

Except he makes appearances all over the OT. In the NT he's Jesus. He also claims to answer prayer. Prayer studies have been done. There is no evidence.
Mortality rates for disease would be impossible to predict is a deity were saving people often. But mortality rates follow probabilities very strictly.

Gods words should be unique and above the writings of humans. The OT is re-worked Mesopotamian mythology and full of contradictions.

The Composition of the Pentateuch by Joel Baden shows many of them.

Any formal system of truth involving true/false logic is mathematical enough. If you change the context of any ifthen statement it can become false in the new context. Making it true will be more difficult, but I only need to show truth can be made false by a context change. Change the if, and you might change the then; and so logical propositions appear to have the same problem as number systems.

What is the meaning of life? Can you prove it? Probably not.

Why would I know the meaning of life? What is the meaning of galaxies? Probably exactly the same as that. (no meaning)

I don't need Godels theorem when deciding if deities are real. If you feel it's not possible to know then are you on the fence about all Gods? Krishna, Zeus, Allah, Brahman...?

 

[joelr]

That's not true. It is only true for people who have no good reason to believe that God exists.
That is not confined to empirical proof. You repeatedly suggest this, as you do not seem to have any other "mechanism" of evaluation.

Yes it is. Your reason for believing is the same as Christians, Hindu and other religions. Yet you know those deities are not real as stated in the scripture. Therefore the reasoning has led them to believe something not real. You are doing the same thing. Believing something because you have been convinced the story is true is also what people do with the ufo field, alien abductions and any other pseudo-science. Our belief/mind is not equipped to give us an accurate picture of what is real when evidence is not involved.

There is an entire planet of people who believe complete nonsense. Magic, law of attraction, crystal healing, witchcraft, race superiority, Big Foot, Roswell aliens, Area 51......

There is no "one liner" .. it is something that we have to evaluate for ourselves.
You evaluate as "I don't know", as there is not any empirical evidence that you are aware of.
I evaluate as I evaluate .. and is more than just "a whim" that God exists.

My experience as a Muslim has reinforced my belief .. it starts off as being "is life just a coincidence? NO" ..
..followed by "does Islam make any sense in the 45 years that I've been following it? Without a doubt!" .. "does it appear as though pious people that follow Islam are more fortunate in life than those that don't? It appears so." "if I chose to ignore my belief, would this help me? No"... and so on.

You have effectively debunked your beliefs here:

I evaluate as I evaluate - since this doesn't incluse empirical evidence it means you use confirmation bias to take events and attribute them to God. Same thing Hindus do to Lord Krishna and Christians to Jesus. Except to you they are wrong. Generally when everyone else doing the same as you is wrong but you get a special pass/pleading you are also wrong.

My experience as a Muslim has reinforced my belief - so you use confirmation bias to attribute things to your deity, like all religions

"is life just a coincidence? NO" .. - confirmation bias. First we don't know the answer to that. Science has shown that it's within reason that probabilities and self replicating compounds led to early life. This has nothing to do with Inana, Yahweh, Krishna or Allah.

"does Islam make any sense in the 45 years that I've been following it? - something making sense does not mean it's a real religion. Does angels giving people messages make sense? If someone today claimed an angel gave them a message would you consider that as something that makes sense? Do the literal lies they use in apologetics make sense? The science that "had to come from God" that proves the Quran? Yet it's all Greek science and Arabs were known to have taken it from the Christian church basements and taken an interest in the science.
Why would they have to lie?
"does it appear as though pious people that follow Islam are more fortunate in life - Mormons would say they are more fortunate. I know some. Does that mean that the angel who gave messages to Joseph Smith was real? The Islamic wars and wars between moderate Muslims and Muslim extremists is not fortunate. Explain how Muslims on average are more fortunate than people in other religions or secular. When you try you may see this is all confirmation bias.

"if I chose to ignore my belief, would this help me? No" - You might lose your ties to community. So do Mormons. None of that means it's actually true. It means it's accepted as true by a community, like Mormon, Hindu or Christian communities. A system that gives structure (like the Mormon lifestyle) may improve some lives. That isn't related to it being real in any way?

You seem to be saying that there is nothing anybody can tell you that will convince you that the existence of God is more likely than not.
Makes sense. We all have different experiences in life, and belief/disbelief is a personal thing.
You can insist that "critical thinking" cannot result in belief, but that implies that everybody who believes in God does so without using their intelligence .. your opinion only.

That is not to say that everybody who believes in God, does so through a process of "critical thinking".
It is very clear that many do not .. they merely follow tradition, or other intention.
Painting all believers with "one brush" is an error of judgment.
People can have good reason to believe in a similar way that people might not believe.

Your reasons like all Muslims is no different than Christians or Hindu. Do you think there is any "good reason" to believe those religions? How good could it be if you know they are not true?
You have no reason that is any different.
There is no good reason to believe in any of these. There are faulty reasons. Anecdotes, tradition, incorrect beliefs. Believing in something without evidence that has never been shown to be real or anything like it does not have good reasons if one cares about believing in true things.
If that is not the case then why can no person ever seem to give a reason?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I could just as easily say "Nobody has a good reason to believe that God doesn't exist"

Yes you could. So could I. In fact, I've said as much in this thread. But it is irrelevant to my point that there is no good reason that a god does exist, by which I mean empiric justification that the belief is correct. Can we assume that you agree with what I wrote since you not only didn't rebut it, you didn't even disagree.

Your problem is that you assume that you know everything that a person could possibly know on the subject.

I know what believers tell me. I know what evidence they offer for gods and the arguments they make in support of their belief. I don't need to know any more than that to reject their claims.

The world? God is not a part of "the world".

Then what interest would such a god be? Incidentally, anything able to interact with any part of nature is another part of nature. When one says that his god is disconnected from reality, he is saying that it is indistinguishable from the unreal. Theists want it both ways. They want a god that is detached from reality and undetectable from within it, but is somehow at the same time real itself and causally connected to it. That's how the supernatural realm and its denizens are described by believers, and it's an incoherent position.

You have your version of "critical thinking", and I have mine. My version does not depend on empirical evidence alone.

There is only one version of critical thinking. I thought I got that idea through to you using analogies involving addition and cooking recipes.

Not all critical thinking is evidence-based, but that which isn't is pure, fallacy-free reason. I gave you my analysis on the logically possible histories of the universe, with six options, the sixth being the one you chose - a sentient universe creator that has always existed - which I identified as a non sequitur fallacy (leap of faith). That's your version of critical thinking, and it's not critical thought. It's faith-based thought.

It would be impossible for anybody to believe in God with your version of "critical thinking". ..because as you very well know, God does not appear on TV or in the sky.

It is impossible to believe any untrue claim using critical thinking - the only version. Try to remember the math analogy, even if you don't agree with it. There is only one set of rules of addition that can add a column of numbers and arrive at a correct sum. Just one. Not my version of adding and yours, just the one that can do that. We can call it critical addition, and all declare all other methods inadequate to the job if being correct is part of the requirement.

Have I shared this quote with you from a pastor Peter laRuffa: "If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."

This is what faith does to critical thought when it modifies it. It makes it something else, something no longer able to reach sound conclusions (or correct sums)

yet God is closer to us than our jugular vein

Is this also a result of your version of critical thinking? It's guessing.

I cannot make an argument in a paragraph and show "therefore God" .. I can only attempt to explain why I believe.

Yes, I know. That is why a god belief is not rational. Those are equivalent ways of saying the same thing. If a sound argument ends with "therefore God," then belief in the same is rational (justified), and if no sound argument ends that way, holding the belief is irrational (unsound, unjustified, faith). I think that you either don't like that or don't understand it, because you don't address it after you read it, but you do go on writing as if you haven't understood what I am telling you. It's a common pattern in discussions with people unfamiliar with the ways of critical analysis. They make a comment. The comment is rebutted, that is, an argument is presented that if correct makes the rebutted claim incorrect, such as you claiming that belief in gods is justified despite there being no sound argument that concludes that they exist and me explaining why that cannot be correct as I have. And rather than a reply explaining why the rebuttal was unsound - a counter-rebuttal - there is either crickets or a waiving of hands ("I don't believe that" or "the Bible says") without rebuttal, followed by a repeat of the original comment with no evidence of any understanding that it has already been ruled out by an unanswered, sound rebuttal.

I've gotten into the habit of telling the other person that that issue has been resolved, and that we're past that unless they want to go back to my rebuttal and rebut it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Satan wasn't "allowed" to do evil in the story, he was SENT to do evil..

I am well aware that Jews, Christians and Muslims have different ideas about satan. You don't believe in any of them.

Aside from the stories you have to give evidence a demon is real as well as this God of stories.

No I don't.
A person either believes in scripture or they don't.

It is not difficult to see that we are all capable of evil.
The narratives in scripture show us that pride and envy can cause us to fall from grace, as did satan.