• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

firedragon

Veteran Member
The only evidence that God exists comes from Holy Books. That is not circular. God is not real because the book says so, the book says so because God is real.

That is definitely circular reasoning. By all accounts it is circular reasoning.

That is not circular reasoning. If someone says "I believe in this book to be Gods word because the book says so" that is circular reasoning. Also you should note that circular reasoning is not always false.

Nevertheless someone saying "the book says so because God is real" is not circular reasoning. It is a reasoning that is referring to an external proposition. If someone says "God is real because the book says so, and the book is Gods word because God says so in the book" that is circular reasoning.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
Why do you expect God to show you what you an find for yourself? Do you believe that God is a man who can show up and introduce Himself?

The only evidence that God exists comes from Holy Books. That is not circular. God is not real because the book says so, the book says so because God is real.

Yes, I believe that God is omnipotent but omnipotence is not what enables God to distinguish between people and how much they really care about believing, omniscience is what allows God to know. But the fact that God knows who really cares is not what matters, because God knows everything. My point was that God wants people to prove that they care about believing by their actions. God knows what those actions will be because God knows everything past present and future.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient then yes I imagine he could show up and introduce himself or at the very least provide some evidence that wasn’t only included in books written by people. Which I have to say is the worst possible way for a god to communicate with his people. Probably why there’s one bible and 30,000 different kinds of Christians.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
That is not circular reasoning. If someone says "I believe in this book to be Gods word because the book says so" that is circular reasoning. Also you should note that circular reasoning is not always false.

Nevertheless someone saying "the book says so because God is real" is not circular reasoning. It is a reasoning that is referring to an external proposition. If someone says "God is real because the book says so, and the book is Gods word because God says so in the book" that is circular reasoning.

God is not real because the book says so, the book says so because God is real.

Someone want to chime in here and settle this?

I do know that circular reasoning can be valid and sound. I’m saying the above statement is circular reasoning and also a logical fallacy.
The logical fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion, the very thing that is in question, is assumed in a premise. This is assuming the conclusion as a starting point, then working logic to arrive back at the conclusion. Since the conclusion is simply the premise re-stated. The premise and conclusion are one and the same. That is why it's called circular reasoning. The rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks or God is not real because the book says so, the book says so because God is real.[/QUOTE]
 

infrabenji

Active Member
The good about belief is that it is personal. If a person in some form has a connection with God, ot is between that person and God. :)
I’ve met many people in my life that were great people and you’d never know they had deeply held religious beliefs. My fiancé’s grandfather was one of these people a superior court judge and a devout catholic who never once discussed his beliefs with others that I’m aware of. Very personal about his relationship with his god.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
I am preparing a long answer for you. But relevant to this is Fries'/Münchhaussen's/Agrippa's Trilemma. That applies to all justification apparently.
I love Agrippa’s Trilemma. Excited to see your breakdown. I’ll be here all night lol don’t forget to tip your waitress.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The only evidence that God exists comes from Holy Books.

But that's utterly terrible as evidence. There are lots of 'holy books' and even more interpretations of them. Why should anybody take any of them seriously?
Do you believe that God is a man who can show up and introduce Himself?

If it's omnipotent, it can do anything it wants.
God to know. But the fact that God knows who really cares is not what matters, because God knows everything. My point was that God wants people to prove that they care about believing by their actions. God knows what those actions will be because God knows everything past present and future.

But if there there is no obvious message from, or evidence for any god(s) why would anybody rational go looking? Why would a god that has effectively hidden itself then be interested in people who "care about believing"?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
The only evidence that God exists comes from Holy Books. That is not circular. God is not real because the book says so, the book says so because God is real.

That is definitely circular reasoning. By all accounts it is circular reasoning.


Your mind is already made up. You have decided that the only tools you will use to search for the existence of an underlying creative intelligence, are those tools that you yourself already know to be of no use for this purpose.

Only by putting logic and reason to one side, and trusting in something that lies deeper, that is not a function of the ego but of the spirit, only then can your journey towards spiritual, rather than intellectual enlightenment begin.

If you are not willing even to search sincerely, perhaps to read with an open heart some of those spiritual books you dismiss, then of course you will find nothing; because the instruments you insist on using to conduct this experiment, are not capable of proving what it is you say you are looking for.

You need, in my opinion, to use different instruments, and to ask different questions.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I accept things as real when they can be measured and corroborated by different people.

If I see the elephant and say it is walking in a certain direction, and other people see the elephant and say it is walking in the same direction, then I can conclude that the elephant is real and that my observation is accurate. If I see the elephant and other people say there is no elephant, then I have to consider that the elephant is a hallucination I am experiencing.

@infrabenji, real life is bugging me, so it will have to be short.

The problem is that "I accept" is not real as "can be measured and corroborated by different people", because the first one is subjective and the other is objective.
In all its absurdity it is a self-referring self-refuting rule: I have a subjective rule that only the objective is real, so my rule as subjective, is not real and thus not valid as real.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
Your mind is already made up. You have decided that the only tools you will use to search for the existence of an underlying creative intelligence, are those tools that you yourself already know to be of no use for this purpose.

Only by putting logic and reason to one side, and trusting in something that lies deeper, that is not a function of the ego but of the spirit, only then can your journey towards spiritual, rather than intellectual enlightenment begin.

If you are not willing even to search sincerely, perhaps to read with an open heart some of those spiritual books you dismiss, then of course you will find nothing; because the instruments you insist on using to conduct this experiment, are not capable of proving what it is you say you are looking for.

You need, in my opinion, to use different instruments, and to ask different questions.
I appreciate your insight. As someone who has been fascinated by people’s beliefs for decades I have read many scriptural texts or holy books whatever you want to call them. Can you tell me why logic and critical thinking are tools I should abandon? Can you provide something that shows we have spirits or that there is in fact a spiritual. In psycho analyses I think the ego, as far as we know, is responsible for reality testing. I think you might be comparing my “ego” with a super ego basically the opposite of the ego? I’m trying to determine what’s true. If you care about what’s true you would want to use the best proven tools for determining what is, in fact, true. What instruments would you recommend I use to determine the true claims out of all the different religious claims that are coming my way via this forum? What questions should I ask?
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
In psycho analyses I think the ego, as far as we know, is responsible for reality testing. I think you might be comparing my “ego” with a super ego basically the opposite of the ego?

Psychoanalysis is not, I understand, generally considered to be scientific, so I'm a little surprised you make reference to it.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
@infrabenji, real life is bugging me, so it will have to be short.

The problem is that "I accept" is not real as "can be measured and corroborated by different people", because the first one is subjective and the other is objective.
In all its absurdity it is a self-referring self-refuting rule: I have a subjective rule that only the objective is real, so my rule as subjective, is not real and thus not valid as real.
@infrabenji, real life is bugging me, so it will have to be short.

The problem is that "I accept" is not real as "can be measured and corroborated by different people", because the first one is subjective and the other is objective.
In all its absurdity it is a self-referring self-refuting rule: I have a subjective rule that only the objective is real, so my rule as subjective, is not real and thus not valid as real.

I love hearing from you and Tiberius. Sorry life’s getting in the way. I had an appointment with my lawyer, my doctor, my financial advisor, and my children’s school administrator outlining the tuition I’m paying for their private school since my oldest is taking more complicated and expensive classes like chemistry and biology next year. So I totally get it. My fiancé’s reading to me about Freud and his influence in Islam and Hinduism. Wild stuff. Look forward to hearing from you soon.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Only by putting logic and reason to one side, and trusting in something that lies deeper, that is not a function of the ego but of the spirit, only then can your journey towards spiritual, rather than intellectual enlightenment begin.

If you put logic and reason to one side, then how can you know the difference between some entirely self-generated subjective experience and the 'discovery' (or however you'd put it) of god? Since people who do this kind of thing have reached a whole variety of different, and often contradictory conclusions, the obvious conclusion is that the method is extremely unreliable at best.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
Psychoanalysis is not, I understand, generally considered to be scientific, so I'm a little surprised you make reference to it.
The person I was talking to spoke specifically to putting aside my ego and adopting spirituality. It reminded me of the dichotomy between ego and super ego. That’s why I asked in the form of a question. To see if that’s what they were referencing. I hope that clarified your question. I typically don’t go in for psychoanalysis as a methodology for debate or discourse unless that’s the subject specifically. I do not have a degree in psychology though I do have several other liberal art degrees lol.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
The person I was talking to spoke specifically to putting aside my ego and adopting spirituality. It reminded me of the dichotomy between ego and super ego. That’s why I asked in the form of a question. To see if that’s what they were referencing. I hope that clarified your question. I typically don’t go in for psychoanalysis as a methodology for debate or discourse unless that’s the subject specifically. I do not have a degree in psychology though I do have several other liberal art degrees lol.
Thanks for the clarification. I only have the one degree :D
 

infrabenji

Active Member
But that's utterly terrible as evidence. There are lots of 'holy books' and even more interpretations of them. Why should anybody take any of them seriously?


If it's omnipotent, it can do anything it wants.


But if there there is no obvious message from, or evidence for any god(s) why would anybody rational go looking? Why would a god that has effectively hidden itself then be interested in people who "care about believing"?
God is not real because the book says so, the book says so because God is real.

Can you chime in here and settle this? @firedragon is saying the above statement isn’t circular reasoning. I’m saying it is. I’d love another opinion. My reasons are below. I couldn’t figure out how to attach his argument, otherwise I would have to be fair. If I can figure it out I’ll do it but the statement listed above is the same for both arguments.

I do know that circular reasoning can be valid and sound. I’m saying the above statement is circular reasoning and also a logical fallacy.
The logical fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion, the very thing that is in question, is assumed in a premise. This is assuming the conclusion as a starting point, then working logic to arrive back at the conclusion. Since the conclusion is simply the premise re-stated. The premise and conclusion are one and the same. That is why it's called circular reasoning. The rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks or God is not real because the book says so, the book says so because God is real.
 
Last edited:

infrabenji

Active Member
Thanks for the clarification. I only have the one degree :D
All my degrees are so old they’re written on papyrus. Ironically, I don’t work in any field I have a degree in and I have 3 degrees and am working on another lol. Hopefully, this last ones a winner otherwise I’m moving to a country with free college.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I appreciate your insight. As someone who has been fascinated by people’s beliefs for decades I have read many scriptural texts or holy books whatever you want to call them. Can you tell me why logic and critical thinking are tools I should abandon? Can you provide something that shows we have spirits or that there is in fact a spiritual. In psycho analyses I think the ego, as far as we know, is responsible for reality testing. I think you might be comparing my “ego” with a super ego basically the opposite of the ego? I’m trying to determine what’s true. If you care about what’s true you would want to use the best proven tools for determining what is, in fact, true. What instruments would you recommend I use to determine the true claims out of all the different religious claims that are coming my way via this forum? What questions should I ask?


Let’s use an illustration from the world of scientific research, to illustrate this point about instruments.
I know how much most atheists venerate science.

It’s now the established consensus among the scientific community, that dark matter exists. But no particle of dark matter has yet been detected, despite huge resources being applied to try to detect it. Physicists know it exists, because they see how it impacts on other phenomena. But all the tools that have been used to detect it, including huge underground detectors, have so far drawn a blank. So it’s beginning to look as though the tools are not up to the job. Science is looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. But the search has not been abandoned; the theories continue to adapt and adjust.

Perhaps you might begin by accepting that God cannot be directly observed using either your senses or your intellect. But if you were to ask believers not for proof of God, but for evidence of how faith in God has impacted on their lives, you might get some better answers. Or you might not. It is what it is.

And perhaps you might ask yourself what the presence and awareness of God might look like in your life. What, you might consider, is missing in your life, that no person, no material possession, no achievement, no prize, no glory, no recognition can fulfill? If your answer to that last question is “nothing”, then you can abandon the search for divine power, and be on your way.

But if the answer is, yes, something is missing; if you suspect what has been called a hole in the soul, you might begin to ask yourself if some divine power could fill that hole. And then you might begin to search for that power; not with your intellect, but with your soul, guided perhaps by your intuition. No one else can do this for you, though you might seek guidance from others who have trod this path.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I love hearing from you and Tiberius. Sorry life’s getting in the way. I had an appointment with my lawyer, my doctor, my financial advisor, and my children’s school administrator outlining the tuition I’m paying for their private school since my oldest is taking more complicated and expensive classes like chemistry and biology next year. So I totally get it. My fiancé’s reading to me about Freud and his influence in Islam and Hinduism. Wild stuff. Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Okay.
As short as possible.

I will explain the world. - The problem is that it is in part in a sense self-referring, because I do it. So we do it with science. Problem solved, right?
Well, no! https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So here is one way to do it without any reasoning/justification but just where it apparently ends:

There are almost always 3 aspects/factors/categories/concepts at play:
Objective, inter-subjective, subjective.
Someone - process - something (e.g. I have an experience)
It must be independent of humans - we must agree - it must make sense to me.
Physical, social, mind.
Same, similar, different.
Time, place, property.
Past, present, future.
And so on.

There is more, but if you learn to spot those in a debate, you will notice that we all do them. Just with some variation.
So back to my post with Gould about science, cognitive relativism and the problem of rational objective justification, because that is what we are playing. I can't do it for all aspects of the world, if I have to be intellectual honest, so I do what seems to be real to me. I state what is at play and if it is objective, inter-subjective and/or subjective. :)

Regards
Mikkel
 

infrabenji

Active Member
Let’s use an illustration from the world of scientific research, to illustrate this point about instruments.
I know how much most atheists venerate science.

It’s now the established consensus among the scientific community, that dark matter exists. But no particle of dark matter has yet been detected, despite huge resources being applied to try to detect it. Physicists know it exists, because they see how it impacts on other phenomena. But all the tools that have been used to detect it, including huge underground detectors, have so far drawn a blank. So it’s beginning to look as though the tools are not up to the job. Science is looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. But the search has not been abandoned; the theories continue to adapt and adjust.

Perhaps you might begin by accepting that God cannot be directly observed using either your senses or your intellect. But if you were to ask believers not for proof of God, but for evidence of how faith in God has impacted on their lives, you might get some better answers. Or you might not. It is what it is.

And perhaps you might ask yourself what the presence and awareness of God might look like in your life. What, you might consider, is missing in your life, that no person, no material possession, no achievement, no prize, no glory, no recognition can fulfill? If your answer to that last question is “nothing”, then you can abandon the search for divine power, and be on your way.
Thanks for that. I’ll give it the consideration it deserves. You were very eloquent I feel and I like the analogy. I’ll think about it and respond. Thanks again.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
If you put logic and reason to one side, then how can you know the difference between some entirely self-generated subjective experience and the 'discovery' (or however you'd put it) of god? Since people who do this kind of thing have reached a whole variety of different, and often contradictory conclusions, the obvious conclusion is that the method is extremely unreliable at best.


I would suggest developing inspiration and intuition to the point where they become a working part of the mind. Of course they are imperfect tools; just as reason and intellect are imperfect tools. The mind often leads us astray; and the ego will do almost anything to defend itself, even to the extent of causing damage to the organism within which it resides.

For these reasons and others, it’s as well to have some spiritual guidance from trusted others.
 
Top