Trolling is against forum rules. The correct course of action is to file a report. Complaining in open thread is not appropriate.

(March 31, 2017 at 12:12 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Hello AF members.  I have a few questions that are directed at the Christian theist members ... to what degree does faith play a factor in religious argumentation? When trying to establish the existence of god via a reason-based approach (observations in nature, science, logical argumentation etc.), do theists ultimately have to revert back to their holy books and faith in order to link their arguments and conclusions with their particular god

First, I would like to say that in everyday speech the word ‘faith’ has two connotations: 1) an opinion based on scant evidence and 2) confidence or trust. When Christians talk about faith in God we are almost always thinking first and foremost of second connotation while often paying lip-service to the first. For example, if I’m driving with my friend and we come to a rickety bridge, I could be very reluctant to cross it. By all outward appearances, the bridge looks unsafe. If my friend tells me he has driven over it many times and that it is stronger than it looks, I have a dilemma. In the end, whether I cross the bridge or not depends on how much I trust my friend.

Secondly, you need to be aware that in Christianity, faith is a kind of knowledge. It comes directly into the believer as a gift from the Holy Spirit in response to his or her learning of the gospel. It has the same kind of self-confirming quality as incorrigible observations and self-evident principles. In the words of Plantinga:

“Faith is not to be contrasted with knowledge...faith is knowledge, knowledge of a very special kind...involving both the divinely inspired Scripture...and also the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit” – Alvin Plantinga.

This idea is found in writers as diverse as Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Johnathan Edwards.  And first among them the words of the writer of Hebrews:

“Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.”

Next...

“True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in His Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel...” Heidelberg Catechism.

“The believer has sufficient motive for believing, for he is moved by the divine teaching confirmed by miracles and, what it more, by the instigation of the divine intervention” - Thomas Aquinas.

“This evidence, that they, that are spiritually enlightened, have of the truth of the things of religion, is a kind of intuitive and immediate evidence. They believe Gods word to be divine, because they see divinity in them” – Johnathan Edwards.

(Hattip: all the above quotes came for Plantinga’s “Knowledge and Christian Belief”, except of course the one from Hebrews 11)

You asked about “trying to establish the existence of god via a reason-based approach” but that is the opposite of what we do. Faith is not something you reason towards; but rather, something you reason from. For the Christian, the existence of God is what Plantinga calls “properly basic,” which essentially means that belief in God is already in us all, however slightly, by instinct and general experience. As such it is perfectly reasonable for someone of sound mind to believe in God in the absence of any evidence whatsoever; however, to the extent that the believer has made themselves generally aware of various objections and finds them unconvincing, his or her belief is warrented.

I have no interest in building up an edifice of arguments to prove God exists. That is already a properly basic belief I already had that has since been confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Contrary to the general assumption, lack of belief is not the default position; but rather, it takes special effort to assent to the objections. Belief in God is something that people must explained away. Reason is a tool to understand that relationship with God and gain knowledge of His Divine Nature. In other words, I already know by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that God exists in a way similar to the way that I know I have a conscious mind or know that a thing cannot both be and not-be in all the same ways.

(March 31, 2017 at 3:54 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 3:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Brian, please stop trolling.

Not trolling. Sorry you don't like me repeating you got it wrong, but you did. How about you try considering you got it wrong instead of accusing me of doing things I am not doing.

It is one thing to emphasize a point. It is another thing to keep repeating the same exact lines over and over to the same people on multiple threads. Being intentionally annoying is a form of provocation. And I'm not reporting it because it is a mild form of provocation, so I thought I'd ask nicely first.

That is not trolling under forum rules. However, if you feel otherwise, the only appropriate action is to report it. Why are you not doing so?

(March 31, 2017 at 5:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 12:12 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Hello AF members.  I have a few questions that are directed at the Christian theist members ... to what degree does faith play a factor in religious argumentation? When trying to establish the existence of god via a reason-based approach (observations in nature, science, logical argumentation etc.), do theists ultimately have to revert back to their holy books and faith in order to link their arguments and conclusions with their particular god

First, I would like to say that in everyday speech the word ‘faith’ has two connotations: 1) an opinion based on scant evidence and 2) confidence or trust. When Christians talk about faith in God we are almost always thinking first and foremost of second connotation while often paying lip-service to the first. For example, if I’m driving with my friend and we come to a rickety bridge, I could be very reluctant to cross it. By all outward appearances, the bridge looks unsafe. If my friend tells me he has driven over it many times and that it is stronger than it looks, I have a dilemma. In the end, whether I cross the bridge or not depends on how much I trust my friend.

Secondly, you need to be aware that in Christianity, faith is a kind of knowledge. It comes directly into the believer as a gift from the Holy Spirit in response to his or her learning of the gospel. It has the same kind of self-confirming quality as incorrigible observations and self-evident principles. In the words of Plantinga:

“Faith is not to be contrasted with knowledge...faith is knowledge, knowledge of a very special kind...involving both the divinely inspired Scripture...and also the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit” – Alvin Plantinga.

This idea is found in writers as diverse as Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Johnathan Edwards.  And first among them the words of the writer of Hebrews:

“Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.”

Next...

“True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in His Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel...” Heidelberg Catechism.

“The believer has sufficient motive for believing, for he is moved by the divine teaching confirmed by miracles and, what it more, by the instigation of the divine intervention” - Thomas Aquinas.

“This evidence, that they, that are spiritually enlightened, have of the truth of the things of religion, is a kind of intuitive and immediate evidence. They believe Gods word to be divine, because they see divinity in them” – Johnathan Edwards.

(Hattip: all the above quotes came for Plantinga’s “Knowledge and Christian Belief”, except of course the one from Hebrews 11)

You asked about “trying to establish the existence of god via a reason-based approach” but that is the opposite of what we do. Faith is not something you reason towards; but rather, something you reason from. For the Christian, the existence of God is what Plantinga calls “properly basic,” which essentially means that belief in God is already in us all, however slightly, by instinct and general experience. As such it is perfectly reasonable for someone of sound mind to believe in God in the absence of any evidence whatsoever; however, to the extent that the believer has made themselves generally aware of various objections and finds them unconvincing, his or her belief is warrented.

I have no interest in building up an edifice of arguments to prove God exists. That is already a properly basic belief I already had that has since been confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Contrary to the general assumption, lack of belief is not the default position; but rather, it takes special effort to assent to the objections. Belief in God is something that people must explained away. Reason is a tool to understand that relationship with God and gain knowledge of His Divine Nature. In other words, I already know by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that God exists in a way similar to the way that I know I have a conscious mind or know that a thing cannot both be and not-be in all the same ways.

(March 31, 2017 at 3:54 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Not trolling. Sorry you don't like me repeating you got it wrong, but you did. How about you try considering you got it wrong instead of accusing me of doing things I am not doing.

It is one thing to emphasize a point. It is another thing to keep repeating the same exact lines over and over to the same people on multiple threads. Being intentionally annoying is a form of provocation. And I'm not reporting it because it is a mild form of provocation, so I thought I'd ask nicely first.

Cry me a river about my repetition, you get to log off this website and outside your house you have the benefit of being part of a majority. We see this not only here, but everywhere we go, we get it on or tvs, on our computers, on bumperstickers. we pass countless holy places on the road in travel, in casual conversations face to face all the time. 

In a world full of mostly theists with all sorts of religions, if you want to compare who repeats claims at a higher volume/rate that would be theists, not atheists. I find it silly especially when nobody forced you to join this website, that you would complain about it. 

Now in this thread, a couple of other theists have been repeating the 'fine tuning" argument over and over in multiple threads. Again, if they had anything real, they would not have to merely argue it here on a mere website, they could argue their "fine tuning=my particular deity" and prove it in a neutral lab and have it confirmed by neutral peer review.

How about YOU stop repeating yourself about how science proves your god and admit it is merely something you like believing? Because if you are not willing to be honest with yourself, I will keep repeating, so what, get in line, take a number, everyone does that.

(March 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm)Brian37 Wrote: 1. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of Allah"
2. You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of Yahweh"
3. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the wisdom of Buddha"
4. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the Hindu creator God Brahama"

(March 26, 2017 at 5:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Christian God is the one real god" Does that line still make sense to you?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Jewish God Yahweh is the one real god" Does that still make sense to you?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore Buddha is the only real source for knowledge" Still make sense?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Hindu creator God Brahama is the one real god" Still make sense to you?

(March 31, 2017 at 4:04 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "they refer to special revelation" ok, therefore Allah
"they refer to special revelation", ok. therefore Yahweh
"they refer to special revelation", ok, therefore Buddha
"they refer to special revelation", ok, therefore Brahama

(March 31, 2017 at 2:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Waaa waaaa waaaa waaaa science.......waaa waaa waaa Allah. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science........waaa waaaa waaa Yahweh. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science........waaaa waaa waaa Buddha. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science.....waaa waaa waaa waa Brahama. What, that doesn't work for you?

(March 31, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Dakwins hangs his hat on chance= Allah....... Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance= Yahweh..... Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance=Buddha ......Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance= Brahama....Why would that not work on you?

(March 31, 2017 at 3:30 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Non- sequitur=therefore Allah........
Non-sequitur=therefore Yahweh......
Non- sequitur=therefore Buddha.......
Non-sequitur=therefore Brahama......

I know you think you are being clever, but telling a joke twice doesn’t make it twice as funny.

(March 31, 2017 at 6:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm)Brian37 Wrote: 1. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of Allah"
2. You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of Yahweh"
3. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the wisdom of Buddha"
4. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the Hindu creator God Brahama"

(March 26, 2017 at 5:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Christian God is the one real god" Does that line still make sense to you?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Jewish God Yahweh is the one real god" Does that still make sense to you?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore Buddha is the only real source for knowledge" Still make sense?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Hindu creator God Brahama is the one real god" Still make sense to you?

(March 31, 2017 at 4:04 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "they refer to special revelation" ok, therefore Allah
"they refer to special revelation", ok. therefore Yahweh
"they refer to special revelation", ok, therefore Buddha
"they refer to special revelation", ok, therefore Brahama

(March 31, 2017 at 2:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Waaa waaaa waaaa waaaa science.......waaa waaa waaa Allah. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science........waaa waaaa waaa Yahweh. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science........waaaa waaa waaa Buddha. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science.....waaa waaa waaa waa Brahama. What, that doesn't work for you?

(March 31, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Dakwins hangs his hat on chance= Allah....... Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance= Yahweh..... Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance=Buddha ......Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance= Brahama....Why would that not work on you?

(March 31, 2017 at 3:30 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Non- sequitur=therefore Allah........
Non-sequitur=therefore Yahweh......
Non- sequitur=therefore Buddha.......
Non-sequitur=therefore Brahama......

I know you think you are being clever, but telling a joke twice doesn’t make it twice as funny.

Not meant to be funny one bit. It really is meant to challenge anyone reading it to take out their pet deity and plug in another one and get them to think if that would still work. Sarcastic at best, but not meant to be funny. I dare you to try it. 

I am not being funny one bit. I am dead serious, sarcastic, yes, but dead serious. 

Would it work on you, and convert you to Islam if I claimed "science=Allah" ?
Would it work on you, and convert you to being a Jew if I claimed "science=Yahweh"?
Would it work on you, and convert you to Buddhism if I claimed "science=Buddha"?
Would it work on you, and convert you to Hinduism if I claimed "science=Brahama"?

If none of those combos would convince you to convert to those religions, again, tell me why I should treat your claim with any special consideration? Since you are not honest enough with yourself, I will tell you why. Just like when others try to use science to point to there club, and just like you, none of you are being neutral, it still amounts to saying "I like what I believe". Do not ask me to do for you what you are not yourself willing to do for others. I am not treating you differently than i would any other religion or any other god claim. Consider those options or admit your own bias.

None. End of story. I figured it out when I was 11. All the flowery words and convoluted logic aren't going to get past the fact that there are no facts supporting religion, only feels. It's a crying shame, because what are the religious going to do, if there is really no god? Run around with their hair on fire, raping and pillaging in foreign countries, because there is no god to tell them not to? Wait...uh...yeah...huh.

(March 31, 2017 at 3:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Brian, please stop trolling.

Wooters, please stop back seat moderating.

Quote:Brian, please stop trolling

Wooter please dodging the question

And like tazz says stop pretending your a mod

(April 1, 2017 at 5:55 pm)Orochi Wrote:

Quote:Brian, please stop trolling

Wooter please dodging the question

And like tazz says stop pretending your a mod

I already did here: Answer to Brian.

And I have politely asking Brian to not follow me on different threads with the same repeated objection. On any other forum this would qualify as trolling. By AF standards it is not, as mods have politely informed me. Brian's just being a prick and he's inching his way towards my ignore list - the same one Tazzycorn is already on.