So it comes back to believing what you want to believe, emotional reasoning and not logic. I think we eventually got to the point I was trying to make earlier Admitting there can be no proof or even evidence for something is admitting there is no logical reason to believe it, unless you define logic as being picking and choosing beliefs which may be true.

When there is no evidence, that is not a logical crossroads, it's an indication that there is no logical reason to believe the proposed conclusion. Expecting evidence against an unfalsifiable claim in order to reject it is to expect the impossible, and to have already drawn your conclusion.

I do respect the fact that you admit there is no evidence/proof, that's way more than most theists would do. Instead they rationalise with their terrible arguments from design or cosmological arguments, which are rarely the argument which actually convinced them. Most likely it never was an argument, just conditioning over time.

Quite the opposite for me Rob. Feelings are nothing to do with logic. I don't understand how you're making that leap.

Logical proof is actually proof. If it weren't logical it couldn't be possible. Are you saying that what is logical is also impossible?? That seems arse about face.

Having an obviously illogical reason not to believe seems undesirable. With no logic OR evidence I guess you're left with a feeling. Is that you're position? It seems so to me: you disbelieve because you feel that's right.

I believe because I understand it to be true. No feelings involved.

No, my position is that you are not using what is generally described as logic. You are committing logical fallacies in all your arguments, your logic is not sound.

You are using "argument from ignorance" (I believe my conclusion until it is proved wrong) and non-sequiturs (jumping from one step to another that in no way logically follows).

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to clear up confusion. I don't see any coherent logic in your arguments. If there is some, you have not explained it properly, in my opinion.

The motivation behind using logical fallacies willingly is usually an emotional desire for the conclusion to be true, whether it is or not. Everyone is guilty of it from time to time.

You have said that it is "up to you" whether you accept the God claim. That is saying that it's equally valid to come to either conclusion. One of the conclusions is wrong, so this statement makes no sense. Also, saying they are equally valid is totally untrue. Two possibilities does not imply a 50/50 split. Even if it was a 50/50 split, it is not logical to just ”choose one". It's logical to say it's equally likely both ways.

[edited out not so great example]

This is just my evaluation, I am in no way declaring this definitive.

Your logic is that you need to see natural evidence of something not natural/ supernatural. It doesn't get any more illogical than that for me.

Logic point #1. Please show me how that is wrong.

Please point me to a logical statement that I've made about my beliefs that you find fallacial or unsound.

Yes, I'm saying you need natural evidence. There is no such thing as supernatural evidence. Well, we need to sort out what "supernatural" means. Could you define it for me please? I'm happy to go with your definition, and then reword my stance if need be.

I described a logical problem in my post. But I have been editing it so you may need to look back now, I probably put it in after you started replying

(December 29, 2014 at 6:48 am)robvalue Wrote: So it comes back to believing what you want to believe, emotional reasoning and not logic. I think we eventually got to the point I was trying to make earlier Admitting there can be no proof or even evidence for something is admitting there is no logical reason to believe it, unless you define logic as being picking and choosing beliefs which may be true.

It seems like Fr0d0 is making Christianity the starting assumption of his logical path, and declares victory immediately by saying "hah, I'm being logical". This is like a proof by contradiction. We need to apply logic to the assumption of Christianity and show that it leads to a contradiction with the accepted opinions of science, history, archaeology, or Christianity itself.

Fr0d0's strategy works with deism, but it doesn't work with Christianity IMO.

Of course a proof by contradiction can only prove that the assumption is false; it can't prove the assumption is true. I think Fr0d0 is arguing that it is o.k. to believe something that can't be proven false, but we can prove Christianity false - or at least very unlikely.

Well of course yes, all these arguments, even if they were valid, get you no further than deism. It is then a total non sequitur to just insert Yahweh into the picture. And I assume frodo does, as he seems to be christian.

If you assume your conclusion, that's indeed a fallacy, you've just created a tautology.

I take supernatural to mean not possibly natural. Outside of the realm of nature. Evidence of the supernatural would require supernatural abilities to detect. Natural evidence of the supernatural is a contradiction in terms.

OK here my answer to your accusation of logical deviation...

Logically there are two identical answers, as naturally, we cannot know at all. We have zero natural evidence. Now the information that we possess and accept on the problem are not the same, hence the different stances on belief. Given my understanding, you would have to believe in deity, you would have no choice. The logical evidence is overwhelming. Likewise, given your understanding, I would have to disbelieve. I wouldn't have any choice either.

(December 29, 2014 at 7:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Quite the opposite for me Rob. Feelings are nothing to do with logic. I don't understand how you're making that leap.

Logical proof is actually proof. If it weren't logical it couldn't be possible.

Because something is logically possible does not make it true.

Quote:Are you saying that what is logical is also impossible?? That seems arse about face.

Sometimes what seems logical can be impossible in practice.

Quote:Having an obviously illogical reason not to believe seems undesirable. With no logic OR evidence I guess you're left with a feeling. Is that you're position? It seems so to me: you disbelieve because you feel that's right.

There is no evidence for a god and gods existence is illogical. There is no reason to believe in god, in fact I have never seen a very good explanation of what god is supposed to be and as this forum can attest to especially recently the very nature of god is no even agreed on by theists.

Quote:I believe because I understand it to be true. No feelings involved.

What are you understanding to be true? there is no evidence for what you believe and its a logically improbable.

You believe because you want to believe and that's ok.
But don't think that it is a position that is logically sound because it isn't.

Now the information that we possess and accept on the problem are not the same, hence the different stances on belief.

I don't understand what this means. What information do you have that I don't? What information are you accepting that I don't?

You agree there is no supernatural evidence. Therefor there is no logical reason to believe anything supernatural even exists. Just because we define something using words, it doesn't in any way make it real, or even possible.

Again, it sounds to me like you're using a totally different way to come to conclusions than me (and other sceptics). You seem to be changing the level of evidence you are willing to accept for a claim based on how much you want the claim to be true. That's fine, but to call it logic is misguided.

Plum has it right, something being possible does not in any way demonstrate that it is true. And I don't even know what attributes you are assigning your god. What are his powers?