• 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!

The Argument for God(Or Against God) Is Never a Logical One.

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Kathryn said:
Oh wow, mball - thanks for clearing all that up. Now I realize it wasn't God at all. Your pristine logic has convinced me otherwise.

OK back to reality. I hope you don't think that I haven't seriously considered the theories that you just presented. However, the CUMULATIVE experiences in my life, of which this is just one, prove the existance of God to me over and over again.

It's sort of like this. Something can happen to you, and you can say, "Oh well, it must be because...blah blah blah" to disprove the existance of God. Then something else happens and you say, "Yes, but maybe it's...blah blah blah"

Or - it could be God.

I believe in God. I guess you don't. Neither of us will be able to prove or disprove God's existance to each other using simply logic. You can say that you believe the preponderance of evidence in your life points to the theory that there is no God - and I can say that the preponderance of evidence in my life points to the existance OF God, and we may both be right - but our positions are un-provable.
Click to expand...
I think you touch on something that I've thought about for a while: I think that in actual practice, we build our beliefs as mental models: we come up with ideas about how the world works, and then see how the predictions of our models compare against reality. If there's good agreement between the two, then we conclude that our model is a good one, and that the assumptions it is based upon are sound.

So... what do you make of the fact that, apparently, a non-theistic worldview is just as good a model for reality as a worldview that includes a God that's active in the affairs of humanity? If there was really a miracle-wielding God running around out there, don't you think that atheists would find that their worldview is rather unsatisfactory in explaining what they experience and look for something better?

Here's my take on it: all else being equal, if two worldviews differ on some significant objective phenomenon, then one will be demonstrably better than the other. For instance, if you think that gravity works one way and I think it works another, one of us will probably find it much harder to juggle or balance on a high beam.

However, I think (and from what you've said so far, I hope you'll agree) that neither the theistic worldview nor the atheistic worldview are demonstrably better than each other. So what does this mean? I think it implies that the difference between them (i.e. an active God) is not a significant objective phenomenon; IOW, God is subjective... and therefore not objective.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
I think you touch on something that I've thought about for a while: I think that in actual practice, we build our beliefs as mental models: we come up with ideas about how the world works, and then see how the predictions of our models compare against reality. If there's good agreement between the two, then we conclude that our model is a good one, and that the assumptions it is based upon are sound.

So... what do you make of the fact that, apparently, a non-theistic worldview is just as good a model for reality as a worldview that includes a God that's active in the affairs of humanity? If there was really a miracle-wielding God running around out there, don't you think that atheists would find that their worldview is rather unsatisfactory in explaining what they experience and look for something better?

Here's my take on it: all else being equal, if two worldviews differ on some significant objective phenomenon, then one will be demonstrably better than the other. For instance, if you think that gravity works one way and I think it works another, one of us will probably find it much harder to juggle or balance on a high beam.

However, I think (and from what you've said so far, I hope you'll agree) that neither the theistic worldview nor the atheistic worldview are demonstrably better than each other. So what does this mean? I think it implies that the difference between them (i.e. an active God) is not a significant objective phenomenon; IOW, God is subjective... and therefore not objective.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. Rather late in life, I realized that two worldviews could address the same world and neither be inherently wrong.

As a counter the point about demonstability, any mundane, repetitive aspect of the world that has been taken for granted could, in a single moment, become the most wonderous of marvels. That change is "significance," and it's in that moment that "miracle" is demonstrated. And it is an objective phenomenon --it occurs in and of the world, not the person.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Willamena said:
As a counter the point about demonstability, any mundane, repetitive aspect of the world that has been taken for granted could, in a single moment, become the most wonderous of marvels. That change is "significance," and it's in that moment that "miracle" is demonstrated. And it is an objective phenomenon --it occurs in and of the world, not the person.
Click to expand...
That aspect of the world may be objective, but assignment of "wonder" or "marvel" to it is entirely subjective.

Also, "wonder" and "marvel" do not necessarily imply God. Speaking for myself, I experience both on a regular basis; I'd have a hard time believing that anyone's worldview would be completely devoid of these emotions, regardless of their views on god(s).
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
That aspect of the world may be objective, but assignment of "wonder" or "marvel" to it is entirely subjective.

Also, "wonder" and "marvel" do not necessarily imply God. Speaking for myself, I experience both on a regular basis; I'd have a hard time believing that anyone's worldview would be completely devoid of these emotions, regardless of their views on god(s).
Click to expand...
Well, I intended "wonder" and "marvel" to express nothing more than responses to the significant occurance, not that they create or inspire it. Rather, I simply said that the significance of the moment "turns" the mundane into the miracle. While the mundane does not serve to indicate "God", the miracle does.
 
jml03

jml03

Member
mball1297 said:
Ah, yes, Bible quoting. You're hitting all of the usual points. I especially love that the Bible quotes are the ones with the old disclaimers in them. That way, in case you do start to doubt and listen to those who try to tell you God doesn't exist (which is not what's happening in this thread), you've already got you holy book explaining that you shouldn't listen to them for good reason. I also love the calling us swine. That's always a favorite of mine. It's a very Christian thing to call others swine, I think.
Click to expand...

It is always a bit funny when someone who does not believe can tell me the proper way to be a Christian.
 
budha3

budha3

Member
God is not beyond reason. Here we are discussing God in a rational manner; we can reason. Since we can reason supports the argument for God. It obviously reasonable to assume that since we can reason, and God refers to us as his children, the conclusion is that we all came from God, that's why He is sometimes refered to as "One and the Many. Didn't Jesus say the we are Gods?
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
budha3 said:
God is not beyond reason. Here we are discussing God in a rational manner; we can reason. Since we can reason supports the argument for God. It obviously reasonable to assume that since we can reason, and God refers to us as his children, the conclusion is that we all came from God, that's why He is sometimes refered to as "One and the Many. Didn't Jesus say the we are Gods?
Click to expand...

How does reason support the argument for God?
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
jml03 said:
It is always a bit funny when someone who does not believe can tell me the proper way to be a Christian.
Click to expand...

Yet, it's not quite so funny that so many Christians are in desperate need of such instruction. Especially, since it's not exactly rocket science.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
jml03 said:
It is always a bit funny when someone who does not believe can tell me the proper way to be a Christian.
Click to expand...

I find it funny, too. I also find it sad that I have to explain to some Christians how to be a good Christian.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Skwim said:
Just curious as to how you know you're right and they're wrong.
Click to expand...

Because they say so themselves, and then don't follow it. I guarantee jml03 would agree that to be a good Christian you should treat others lovingly and treat them the way you'd want to be treated. I also guarantee she wouldn't want people calling her "swine". It's pretty simple really.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Skwim said:
Excuse me, but I thought all Trampolinists were Christians. If not, my mistake.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether you're kidding, but no, Trampolinists are those who follow the Girls on Trampolines religion, not the Christian one. Therefore we tend to be atheists.

In any case, the gist of my remark remains.
Click to expand...

What is the gist of your remark?
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
mball1297 said:
I'm not sure whether you're kidding, but no, Trampolinists are those who follow the Girls on Trampolines religion, not the Christian one. Therefore we tend to be atheists.

What is the gist of your remark?
Click to expand...
Just as the teachings of Jesus have little if anything to do with why mball1297 must be right and the     Christians wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top