Why all "Logical Proofs Of God" fail ...

[FreeTony]

Well, I don't think that God needs provin'. Those who ask for proof should look for it themselves.

That's a bit like what the magic bean salesman said. I decided not to buy any beans.

[Mystic]

That's not true. Show why that is the case.

Because you are otherwise predicating a very many of your considerations upon a notional supposition. It is a desultory exploration of truth and an arrogant proliferation of belief that allows for Man to impose such ideas upon another without expectation of challenge.

Why does everything have to be challenged? Why is not the believers cliche that's a matter of faith not respected?

When it comes to morals, we often try to impose our ideas upon others, but they often come to the end, back to feelings that are subjective and can't be proven objectively.

Should no one be allowed to state their moral beliefs as well? Or try to promote their moral beliefs as well?

---

Another thing to state, is that even if the believers were relying on analytical evidence. Why are they required to spoon feed it if they are to claim something based on what they researched?

You don't have to prove everything you assert.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

Because you are otherwise predicating a very many of your considerations upon a notional supposition. It is a desultory exploration of truth and an arrogant proliferation of belief that allows for Man to impose such ideas upon another without expectation of challenge.

Why does everything have to be challenged? Why is not the believers cliche that's a matter of faith not respected?

When it comes to morals, we often try to impose our ideas upon others, but they often come to the end, back to feelings that are subjective and can't be proven objectively.

Should no one be allowed to state their moral beliefs as well? Or try to promote their moral beliefs as well?

You and I both know that is hugely dependent upon the nature of that promotion.

Religion hasn't been the most reserved in this regard.

[Mystic]

Why does everything have to be challenged? Why is not the believers cliche that's a matter of faith not respected?

When it comes to morals, we often try to impose our ideas upon others, but they often come to the end, back to feelings that are subjective and can't be proven objectively.

Should no one be allowed to state their moral beliefs as well? Or try to promote their moral beliefs as well?

You and I both know that is hugely dependent upon the nature of that promotion.

Religion hasn't been the most reserved in this regard.

So it's not a universal. If I believe faith in God is similar to faith in morality or justice, why do I have to demonstrate that analytically and not be allowed to simply assert what I personally believe?

The claim that it's not similar to faith in morality or justice would require the same proof claim from my standpoint if I am required to prove it.

[Rampant.A.I.]

You and I both know that is hugely dependent upon the nature of that promotion.

Religion hasn't been the most reserved in this regard.

So it's not a universal. If I believe faith in God is similar to faith in morality or justice, why do I have to demonstrate that analytically and not be allowed to simply assert what I personally believe?

You can assert you believe you have a pet dragon named Pete. That doesn't mean other people have to accept you have a pet dragon, and should take you at your word, especially if you also assert Pete has demands they must follow.

The claim that it's not similar to faith in morality or justice would require the same proof claim from my standpoint if I am required to prove it.

Morality and justice are not faith-based constructs. They are moral, ethical and legal constructs.

[MindForgedManacle]

It is a lie because deep inside they know they don't really talk to god in the same way that psychics know that they don't really have any idea where a killer's victim is buried.

Again, how do you know that? I was once a Christian and I certainly didn't "know" that I wasn't actually talking to God. And I have no reason to think Chad (or other Christians) are as you say either.

I was once a christian myself and I was very heavily immersed in the bullshit of those that surrounded me.
You give them too much slack, They will claim to believe it 'til the cows come home, but very few actually erase the lower conscious doubts. I came to know this as a generalized statement because I have spoken and argued with a rather large number of christians, many of whom are now atheists.

So in other words you are generalizing about billions of people things you don't actually know in regards to them because of your interpretation of your personal experience with a few Christians? How unskeptical of you.

Further, doubts are not lies. You need to learn what words mean before slandering others.

Chad's lies are intentional attempts to deceive others into believing his story. You and he can call me a liar and an asshole and I can call you two liars and assholes. The accusation only stings when it sticks to an underlying truth. So if he doesn't have any low level doubts, me calling him a liar will not have the least effect on him.

Oh man, this is rich. You call him (and all other Christians) liars with ZERO evidence (again, demonstrate Chad intends/has intended to deceive), repeat that he's a liar, and then effectively said "I know you are but what am I?" You embarrass the rest of us when you make such shit "arguments".

Contesting that the god of "his" beliefs exists is a refusal to face reality, because in reality no evidence of his god exists, and a great deal of evidence contrary to his bible's claims do exist.

Perhaps you should look up what the word evidence means:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

In other words, the existence of God does have evidence for it, but whether or not that evidence is good evidence is another story.
Further, saying that because the parts of the Bible are apparently in question does not logically lead to "therefore God does not exist".

No, personal unsubstantiated claims of god/ghost contacts don't count as evidence because the assumed anti-theistic position is that they are delusional. Duh!

So in other words, you assume they are delusions, but since it's an assumption, you prima facie have no evidence of it. Congrats.

Why are you so argumentative on such fine points?
If a man were to come up to you and try to convince you that he had just returned from his home on the planet Jupiter and he wanted to sell you a timeshare there, once you see that he doesn't have other signs of a mental problem, at what point do you, MMM, call him a liar and a con?

I'm argumentative because if you're going to critique something, it's best to do so accurately and not do this ridiculous mottoes that many in the atheist community just parrot.

And it's relatively easy to invalidate your analogy, from a lack of awareness by, say, the military of some unknown object in the airspace anytime recently, which would get on the news, the lack of any evident spacecraft, or I could just ask to verify the existence of this by having him take me there. And that's ignoring my background knowledge that Jupiter has no solid ground on which to have a property.

[Mystic]

So it's not a universal. If I believe faith in God is similar to faith in morality or justice, why do I have to demonstrate that analytically and not be allowed to simply assert what I personally believe?

You can assert you believe you have a pet dragon named Pete. That doesn't mean other people have to accept you have a pet dragon, and should take you at your word, especially if you also assert Pete has demands they must follow.

But likewise if I have a dog name pete, I don't have to prove I have a dog name pete if I assert it. People can believe me or not, and if I want to prove it, I can, and if I don't, I'm not required to.

Morality and justice are not faith-based constructs. They are moral, ethical and legal constructs.

They are faith constructs because they are not physical and rather are unseen/non-physical and can be denied. This would be akin to say belief in God is not faith but a God sense construct. They are similar, belief in these things don't have physical foundation, they are rather felt and believed in an unseen way.

[FreeTony]

Let's face it, if you were an oil worker trying to find a new site for a well, or working for a bank trying to justify why you wanted to make a certain investment you'd use evidence.

I think you'd be laughed at if you said that your strategy involved metaphysics and faith, even if your boss was a Theist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If there were a successful proof of God's existence...what do you actually think follows? Do you think it necessarily follows that therefore God exists?

Short answer, no. IMHO, a philosophical argument just shows the thinker’s idea to be intellectually defensible. For example, a logical proof for God, does not mean God’s existence must be true; but rather, that someone can rationally believe it likely that God exists, provided that the individual's beliefs work together with his overall understanding in a coherent way.

That overall coherent understanding is key. Both solipsism and eliminative materialism are internally consistent. And they fly in the face of everything else. (like Hume’s skepticism) What I mean is that a narrowly focused inquiry producing a neat and tidy proof may appear perfectly sound on its own terms. But it can still fail to fit in with everything else. The thinker faces a choice: hold on to that proof and thereby undermine every other idea OR consider it an interesting curiosity and work with equally self-consistent ideas that have wider application.

Objects don't have the property of 'existence', rather existence is the necessary precondition to having properties in the first place... to even do apologetics... one has to defend metaphysics from about 200 years of very powerful and convincing criticism...analytic philosophy has basically abandoned metaphysics...

An actual observer independent sensible object best serves as the precondition for manifesting various phenomena to a knowing subject. I have done little more than assert that a sensible object must both actually exist (as more than just successive appearances) and exist as something (a what). Personally and based on my own studies, I don’t find much of anything compelling enough to dismiss this basic truth.

---

@MMM, thanks for the support but I’m a big boy...sticks and stones and all that.

I was once a christian myself and I was very heavily immersed in the bullshit of those that surrounded me. ... I have spoken and argued with a rather large number of christians, many of whom are now atheists.

Most people on AF know that I used to be an atheist. Need I go on?

[psychoslice]

Well, I don't think that God needs provin'. Those who ask for proof should look for it themselves.

But then if those who say they have the proof, why can't they simply show their proof, unless of course they just have faith, which is not proof.