Road rules4 mins ago
Reasons for God's existence
53 Answers
In another discussion on this site keyplus90 claimed that...
Logically there are more reasons to believe that [God] exists than otherwise.
I'd be genuinely interested to learn from keyplus or anyone else what those reasons are.
To save time and space I'd be grateful if we could stick to reasons and not mere beliefs.
Logically there are more reasons to believe that [God] exists than otherwise.
I'd be genuinely interested to learn from keyplus or anyone else what those reasons are.
To save time and space I'd be grateful if we could stick to reasons and not mere beliefs.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not really Sherman, I think I can grasp your meaning.
If we take the 'Random Faith of the Magic Pencil' out of the frame and call them someting else, then as things evolve, people by their very personality, ambition or shear hate for someone else who is just different, will have different ideas about how to effect their common cause.
If we assume it is not based on faith or superstition or anything spiritual at all, lets say for arguments sake - atheists - then you will stil get 'splitters' who are antitheist.
They don�t just want to advise and inform the (religious) world that they don�t believe in all their malarkey / hocus pocus etc � like your general atheist � they actively want to rid the world of religion, its places of worship and its followers.
So it doesn�t really matter what label you give a �group� of people, or the foundation of their common cause. When a group becomes collective, you will always got someone who wants to take it in a different direction. But this isn�t always bad. Sometimes those beliefs evolve with understanding and acceptance, and the �splitters� become more adaptable to modern and scientific knowledge whilst remaining faithful. Another concept that baffles many and they label them �hypocrites� or dissenters.
Following the true faith is a matter for scourn, allowing yourself to evolve through faith that is comfortable with your personality/belief/outlook/spiritualism and being accepting or respectful of all others is hypocrisy.
If we take the 'Random Faith of the Magic Pencil' out of the frame and call them someting else, then as things evolve, people by their very personality, ambition or shear hate for someone else who is just different, will have different ideas about how to effect their common cause.
If we assume it is not based on faith or superstition or anything spiritual at all, lets say for arguments sake - atheists - then you will stil get 'splitters' who are antitheist.
They don�t just want to advise and inform the (religious) world that they don�t believe in all their malarkey / hocus pocus etc � like your general atheist � they actively want to rid the world of religion, its places of worship and its followers.
So it doesn�t really matter what label you give a �group� of people, or the foundation of their common cause. When a group becomes collective, you will always got someone who wants to take it in a different direction. But this isn�t always bad. Sometimes those beliefs evolve with understanding and acceptance, and the �splitters� become more adaptable to modern and scientific knowledge whilst remaining faithful. Another concept that baffles many and they label them �hypocrites� or dissenters.
Following the true faith is a matter for scourn, allowing yourself to evolve through faith that is comfortable with your personality/belief/outlook/spiritualism and being accepting or respectful of all others is hypocrisy.
I didn't mean that I was quoting you, but I certainly drew from what you wrote that you thought that faith alone was a valid basis for believing something.
Was I wrong?
My reason for bringing in the "magic pencil" was to illustrate that if you strip away the history and culture from religion and just measure it just on it's ability to provide results it doesn't fare too well.
Religions always tell us that we mustn't test God - why? because when we do it fails.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question - I'll place it in another thread..
Was I wrong?
My reason for bringing in the "magic pencil" was to illustrate that if you strip away the history and culture from religion and just measure it just on it's ability to provide results it doesn't fare too well.
Religions always tell us that we mustn't test God - why? because when we do it fails.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question - I'll place it in another thread..
Thank you, class, for your efforts. It�s time for a preliminary marking and checking of progress, I think.
I never mind when the thread moves away from the original question: that is part of the undisciplined charm of AB. Nevertheless I think that one should occasionally drag people back to the stated issue. So here goes:
I don�t think it�s a good idea to go on about Brighton FC on a thread started by a lifelong supporter of that superb team, Liverpool FC. (Oops sorry, 123everton).
Octavius, when he is not acting as slightly sardonic observer, gives an impassioned account of why he believes in God. I follow him absolutely, but he forgets how this started: the claim by keyplus that �logically there are more reasons�� Surely we should now expect a list of those reasons so that we can compare them with the list of reasons not to believe in God, so that we can see for ourselves which list is greater. The subsequent dialogue between Octavius and the always sensible jake is interesting but again not germane. Neither is the contribution by The Sherman.
joggerjayne and sqad also run along the sidelines.
So back to keyplus90 with my sympathy and best wishes to his wife.
Alas, he does not back his claim. I know full well why people believe in God (and Octavius�s idea that I feel I�m being forced to believe in him is, frankly, ludicrous; I feel no such threat and would shrug it off easily if I did) and therefore quite understand what keyplus says.
But why, when what he is offering is standard faith, does he make such a bold and extravagant claim about reasons? He doesn�t have to, so why does he give such a hostage to fortune? Surely his faith will do.
Perhaps, keyplus, you might consider rewording your claim.
I never mind when the thread moves away from the original question: that is part of the undisciplined charm of AB. Nevertheless I think that one should occasionally drag people back to the stated issue. So here goes:
I don�t think it�s a good idea to go on about Brighton FC on a thread started by a lifelong supporter of that superb team, Liverpool FC. (Oops sorry, 123everton).
Octavius, when he is not acting as slightly sardonic observer, gives an impassioned account of why he believes in God. I follow him absolutely, but he forgets how this started: the claim by keyplus that �logically there are more reasons�� Surely we should now expect a list of those reasons so that we can compare them with the list of reasons not to believe in God, so that we can see for ourselves which list is greater. The subsequent dialogue between Octavius and the always sensible jake is interesting but again not germane. Neither is the contribution by The Sherman.
joggerjayne and sqad also run along the sidelines.
So back to keyplus90 with my sympathy and best wishes to his wife.
Alas, he does not back his claim. I know full well why people believe in God (and Octavius�s idea that I feel I�m being forced to believe in him is, frankly, ludicrous; I feel no such threat and would shrug it off easily if I did) and therefore quite understand what keyplus says.
But why, when what he is offering is standard faith, does he make such a bold and extravagant claim about reasons? He doesn�t have to, so why does he give such a hostage to fortune? Surely his faith will do.
Perhaps, keyplus, you might consider rewording your claim.
Yes, apart from Octavius's quite unwarranted use of the word 'vehemence' (another misuse of the language?) I think you're both right, though naomi slightly more than Octavius.
This is really just a matter of semantics. keyplus used words that he didn't mean, though (as naomi says) not because of any difficulty with the language but due to that carelessness with which the faithful use words they cannot justify, forgeting that they are not always surrounded by other religionists who will just nod their heads in unthinking agreement; rational people are likely to sit up and take more notice.
His own post above shows that keyplus really didn't mean 'logically', so let's leave it at that.
We all hope his wife is getting better.
This is really just a matter of semantics. keyplus used words that he didn't mean, though (as naomi says) not because of any difficulty with the language but due to that carelessness with which the faithful use words they cannot justify, forgeting that they are not always surrounded by other religionists who will just nod their heads in unthinking agreement; rational people are likely to sit up and take more notice.
His own post above shows that keyplus really didn't mean 'logically', so let's leave it at that.
We all hope his wife is getting better.
No naomi, I didn�t undermine him at all. I am asserting his English is not the best at times, and often he does not come across entirely has he probably intends. I make no bones about that fact that sometimes I can�t fathom out what he is going on about. I was not being spiteful, however you wish to tarnish me.
He may well come back with some logical reasons for his belief. But they probably won�t be logical to you. So�.
�Why ask what his logical reasons are? You already know his beliefs, and since you already assert that his notions are woolly, you must also know what his answers to the questions would be, so there's little point in asking, and there's even less point in him bothering to answer. Complete waste of time in my view.�
And yes, I do hope things are improving at home. Best wishes keyplus.
He may well come back with some logical reasons for his belief. But they probably won�t be logical to you. So�.
�Why ask what his logical reasons are? You already know his beliefs, and since you already assert that his notions are woolly, you must also know what his answers to the questions would be, so there's little point in asking, and there's even less point in him bothering to answer. Complete waste of time in my view.�
And yes, I do hope things are improving at home. Best wishes keyplus.
First of all thanks to all who showed patience and bit of a concern about my wife�s situation. Nothing serious but Naomi is spot on in this regard, It is to do with child birth few complications, women stuff, Now she is back home.
Yes my first language is not English but I have never used that as an excuse seriously. I do know what logic is all about but as Octavius said my logic might not be a logic for you. All my logic was in my first post.
So we can not prove ultrasonic with our 5 senses so can you say it does not exist? Give me your logic about it.
When a person is dead, he or she still has ears, nose, eyes, tongue and hands. But they can not speak, hear, smell, taste, or touch. So what is missing? I would say spirit. Did any one see spirit when that person was alive? No.
Or someone give me a logic here without depending upon these 5 senses that God does not exist. Can any one do that? Or on simple note again, please prove to me that ultrasonic waves exist, again without depending upon your 5 senses.
Logic or illogic are just words or impressions. Or please let me know if ultrasonic existed before scientists came up with equipments to find or create it. Can you say yes or no. Or Just we did not know about that.
Yes my first language is not English but I have never used that as an excuse seriously. I do know what logic is all about but as Octavius said my logic might not be a logic for you. All my logic was in my first post.
So we can not prove ultrasonic with our 5 senses so can you say it does not exist? Give me your logic about it.
When a person is dead, he or she still has ears, nose, eyes, tongue and hands. But they can not speak, hear, smell, taste, or touch. So what is missing? I would say spirit. Did any one see spirit when that person was alive? No.
Or someone give me a logic here without depending upon these 5 senses that God does not exist. Can any one do that? Or on simple note again, please prove to me that ultrasonic waves exist, again without depending upon your 5 senses.
Logic or illogic are just words or impressions. Or please let me know if ultrasonic existed before scientists came up with equipments to find or create it. Can you say yes or no. Or Just we did not know about that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.