3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)

[Lek]

[quote='Rhythm' pid='698768' dateline='1404105369']
-that information includes the presence, in the here and now, of electric cars. You haven't modified the analogy, you're actually doubling down on the broken part of it.

[/quote]

Okay. I'll just say that after coming to know how God works in our lives, I reinterpreted the flat tire experience based on my newfound knowledge. It's analogous to my decision that what I saw earlier in my life was actually an electric car, based on my newfound knowledge that they manufacture electric cars.

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='698768' dateline='1404105369']
Of course I'm sincere in my lack of belief. Wouldn't want to start questioning that - or I'll start questioning the sincerity of your beliefs until our noses fall off. We'll never get past that, because - as trolls often remind us - it;s not something so easily "proven". I have a nice house in the country, my crops grow, my children are healthy, I';m not broke. Look at all the increase that no god has brought me? Isn't this evidence identical to your own, doesn't it have the same weight?

[quote]
I wasn't trying to insinuate that you're not sincere in your lack of belief. I'm saying that, in general, if I see a person living an exemplary life, I'd be interested in what that person believes and what motivates him to live that way. If he didn't give me scientific proof for what he believes, I wouldn't automatically dismiss it on that ground. His life is already supporting evidence for what he tells me.

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='698768' dateline='1404105369']

LOL, wtf is an "unproven fact"? Meh, I understand what you're trying to say so I'll bend and say yes...all the time.
[/quote]

Same here. I haven't performed any scientific experiments or researched scientific journals looking for physical evidence of a supernatural God. Like I stated earlier, I have little doubts every so often as I think most christians (and atheists) do. I can sit and wait for more evidence or I can take that leap. I'm convinced I've made the right move. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'll end up in a state of non-existence in which I won't know or care.

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay. I'll just say that after coming to know how God works in our lives, I reinterpreted the flat tire experience based on my newfound knowledge. It's analogous to my decision that what I saw earlier in my life was actually an electric car, based on my newfound knowledge that they manufacture electric cars.

I get that, what I'm trying to explain to you is that your newfound knowledge is not sufficient for a firm conclusion. IOW, even if there were electric cars (or gods) the reasons you've given do not seem adequate for concluding that any particular electric car(or god) was present at any point in your experience. It's not a very robust proposition. It falls apart before we can even squeeze it.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you're not sincere in your lack of belief. I'm saying that, in general, if I see a person living an exemplary life, I'd be interested in what that person believes and what motivates him to live that way. If he didn't give me scientific proof for what he believes, I wouldn't automatically dismiss it on that ground. His life is already supporting evidence for what he tells me.

-and I'm just trying to get you to follow through with what must follow from this statement - if you look at my life. How my life (or the existence of people like me, or how I describe myself) would modify your claim. My life, by your own reasoning - would be supporting evidence for what I;m telling you, which is no god.....

Or would it?

-spoiler alert-

---

If you can answer that bit right there you'll see why your life isn't evidence for god any more than mine is evidence for no god.

---

Same here. I haven't performed any scientific experiments or researched scientific journals looking for physical evidence of a supernatural God. Like I stated earlier, I have little doubts every so often as I think most christians (and atheists) do. I can sit and wait for more evidence or I can take that leap. I'm convinced I've made the right move. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'll end up in a state of non-existence in which I won't know or care.

I'll say this again..but only this last time. I'm not commenting on whether or not you are right, or I am right about gods. I'm trying to explain to you that -if- you are right..it isn't for any of the reasons you've given.....that this (and not god) is what you are "wrong" about. Not your conclusions, the manner in which you claim to have reached them.

[Lek]

[quote='Rhythm' pid='699306' dateline='1404181109']

I get that, what I'm trying to explain to you is that your newfound knowledge is not sufficient for a firm conclusion. IOW, even if there were electric cars (or gods) the reasons you've given do not seem adequate for concluding that any particular electric car(or god) was present at any point in your experience. It's not a very robust proposition. It falls apart before we can even squeeze it.

(I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong in formatting this, but I guess this will work.)

Okay. I get it. Even though I know they make electric cars isn't enough information to determine whether or not the car I saw earlier was an electric car. It was a bad analogy.

[The Grand Nudger]

And the blessings of "god" in your life..or "no god" in mine...is that sufficient evidence for either proposal?

[Lek]

-and I'm just trying to get you to follow through with what must follow from this statement - if you look at my life. How my life (or the existence of people like me, or how I describe myself) would modify your claim. My life, by your own reasoning - would be supporting evidence for what I;m telling you, which is no god.....


If you can answer that bit right there you'll see why your life isn't evidence for god any more than mine is evidence for no god.

Your logic is solid and scientific, but add some humanity to it. I'm searching for "the truth" and I have my idea of how a person who possesses "the truth" would act. If you are an atheist and you act in that way, then I'm going to investigate your atheist beliefs. In that case, your lifestyle would be evidence to me that you may possess "the truth".

---

I'll say this again..but only this last time. I'm not commenting on whether or not you are right, or I am right about gods. I'm trying to explain to you that -if- you are right..it isn't for any of the reasons you've given.....that this (and not god) is what you are "wrong" about. Not your conclusions, the manner in which you claim to have reached them.

I don't agree that my reasons don't support my belief about these incidents. I think you won't accept my reasoning because it doesn't fit within your box. If you rely totally on natural, scientific processes, you can obtain much truth. It works well for natural things, but if you won't look outside that box, then you'll be shut off from the rest of existence. It appears we may have taken this thread to it's limit, but I appreciate the discussion. I have found I need to brush up on my natural logic if I'm going to be debating atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't accept your reasoning because it is irrational. You can imagine all sorts other motivations for me if you like..but I've explained this many times already. Have I failed to explain, at any point, why some remark I've taken issue with was irrational? Are you clear on what it means to be rational or irrational?

(Im glad that you feel that I possess "the truth"...but we can't both possess this particular truth, now can we...that would be irrational - if our conclusions weren't already a non sequitur they would be contradictory)

[Lek]

I don't accept your reasoning because it is irrational. You can imagine all sorts other motivations for me if you like..but I've explained this many times already. Have I failed to explain, at any point, why some remark I've taken issue with was irrational? Are you clear on what it means to be rational or irrational?

(Im glad that you feel that I possess "the truth"...but we can't both possess this particular truth, now can we...that would be irrational - if our conclusions weren't already a non sequitur they would be contradictory)

I didn't say I think you possess the "truth". I was referring to a hypothetical situation. I don't know enough about you to know if you would fit the situation or not. You did explain why you thought I was irrational, but I didn't think your reasons were well-supported and I said why. I guess the readers can decide for themselves.

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't say I think you possess the "truth".

Yes, you did, those are the full implications of your statement about the evidence of a persons life and it's relationship to truth. This is precisely what I'm attempting to explain to you.

I was referring to a hypothetical situation. I don't know enough about you to know if you would fit the situation or not.

You don't have to know anything about me, that's the beauty of a hypothetical situation (but it's telling that the only way for you to square the circle, mentally, is to think that maybe my life isn't so good, that it doesn't fit the pattern you would accept. It does, I assure you). Let me try and make this as simple as possible. Your line of reasoning would allow -if there were an atheist and a theist who both had equally "good" lives- for two mutually exclusive propositions to be true simultaneously. That is what makes this sort of reasoning useless, irrational. Even if you plugged in "true data" you could not be sure that you would get a "true" conclusion.

You did explain why you thought I was irrational, but I didn't think your reasons were well-supported and I said why. I guess the readers can decide for themselves.

Or I can explain it again, and ask you what you think. As above.

[Lek]

I didn't say I think you possess the "truth".

Yes, you did, those are the full implications of your statement about the evidence of a persons life and it's relationship to truth. This is precisely what I'm attempting to explain to you.

I was referring to a hypothetical situation. I don't know enough about you to know if you would fit the situation or not.

You don't have to know anything about me, that's the beauty of a hypothetical situation (but it's telling that the only way for you to square the circle, mentally, is to think that maybe my life isn't so good, that it doesn't fit the pattern you would accept. It does, I assure you). Let me try and make this as simple as possible. Your line of reasoning would allow -if there were an atheist and a theist who both had equally "good" lives- for two mutually exclusive propositions to be true simultaneously. That is what makes this sort of reasoning useless, irrational. Even if you plugged in "true data" you could not be sure that you would get a "true" conclusion.

You did explain why you thought I was irrational, but I didn't think your reasons were well-supported and I said why. I guess the readers can decide for themselves.

Or I can explain it again, and ask you what you think. As above.

If I believe I have the truth and then I discover someone else has the truth, then I would realize that I was wrong in believing what I did. So I'm not saying an atheist and a theist both hold the truth. Living a good life doesn't prove you have the truth, but it is an indicator that might get my attention and cause me to investigate what you believe. If I found that you are right and I accepted that, then I would abandon my present belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I believe I have the truth and then I discover someone else has the truth, then I would realize that I was wrong in believing what I did. So I'm not saying an atheist and a theist both hold the truth. Living a good life doesn't prove you have the truth, but it is an indicator that might get my attention and cause me to investigate what you believe. If I found that you are right and I accepted that, then I would abandon my present belief.

Which, again, and for the same reason - would be irrational. But I want to mention here that a persons life has ceased to be evidence, and is now just an "indicator" -in your statements. This is the type of stuff I like to see. Thank you.

You see, no matter how you employ this line of reasoning it is irrational, because the premise and assumptions don't lead to the conclusions. The reason it keeps happening this way has nothing to do with the assumptions. You could put anything in this line of reasoning and all you would get back is garbage. "If you found that I was right" is to say that "if I found out that no god has blessed his life (that's my claim..that's what I would be right about.I am claiming that my life is blessed...because there is no god - that no god has the power to do that, that blessing my life is the sort of thing that no god will, and can do..on and on - that go god's blessings in my life is an indicator of no god's existence. A real and palpable force) - I would abandon belief in god" doesn't even make sense.

I have been asking you whether or not you would accept your line of reasoning - as support of my position. If I argued to you, of my position - using your lines..........do you think that you might be able to pick it apart? Not my position....I'm accepting yours as true to reach conclusions, you can do the same to mine. The argument.