RE: How did little old us ever take the measure of unimaginably stupendous God?
July 28, 2015 at 9:18 pm
(July 28, 2015 at 3:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(July 28, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: No I don't. Can you cut and paste to here or maybe just link it?
There is a few arguments, but before going into these arguments...let's discuss non-argument faith. Most people who believe in God don't do so on arguments. They just feel it's obvious he exists like morality exists. They also feel they know he is the basis to morality, that they always wonder how Atheists can come to terms to believing in objective morality without God.
All the arguments, even yours, are fallacious.
Quote:The arguments I doubt you will be convinced by them, but they do convince me. However, I believe in God before those arguments and I'm not sure if they even increased me in faith regardless of how convincing they are.
This is true about pretty much everyone that argues with the various philosophical arguments for a god.
The arguments for the existence of a god are not meant to convince non-believers, they are meant to give believers the illusion that they believe for rational reasons.
Quote:But if God exists, why do you think it's rational to assume he didn't give knowledge of himself to us? Why do you assume it's not possible to be given knowledge of God?
well, he certainly hasn't done a very good job of it.
There are and have been 1000's of gods believed in by humanity. None of them have any more evidence than any other.
Why is he unable to make sure humanity has a unified knowledge of him?[/quote]
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
