Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Mister Agenda]

I question the utility of logic as way of proving something exists without reference to evidence for that thing existing...If pure logic doesn't work for things that we know can be real, how can it work for things that can't be demonstrated to exist?

The objective evidence includes the fact there is something rather than nothing, that things can persist in their being despite change, the consistency of cause and effect relationships, etc. To account for this evidence there are logical demonstrations justifying the belief in God as a likely explanation, one that already conforms to subjective intuition, cross cultural encounters with the ineffable, and common apprehension of the sublime.

For the purpose of this thread, I say it takes a special effort to dismiss or explain away the evidence by showing that either the evidence isn't what we naturally suppose it to be or the logic of the demonstrations are flawed or that reason itself is suspect or our notions of causality are suspect. It is just like your rock example. The default position is that the rock exists and it takes lots of philosophical heavy lifting to bring its existence into question. Same for God, even if for the sake of argument  I grant that God's existence does not have same level of immediacy as a rock.

Evidence is something that points to a specific conclusion. You're starting with your conclusion and trying to find anything you can to support it. You can't trust conclusions when you work backwards like that, not to mention that it's a pile of arguments from ignorance: the answer to these questions that we can't know the answer to must be God. You assert that you've proven something, and like all the other folks who think they've proven something ineffable, you just ignore critiques of your argument and make your next post like they've never been addressed.

The rock doesn't exist, by the way.

---

I can think of at least 3 peer-reviewed studies that suggest belief in God is instinctive rather than conventional:

Boston Study; Oxford Study; Skin Conductivity

Of course all of these studies are silent as to whether the instinct refers to something real or only imagined, but that does not affect my argument. It is natural for humans to believe in the divine by default.

It's almost like the atheists in the studies were willing to consider the possibility that God might actually exist and that it might react to their actions. But I thought your position was that atheists believe God does not exist and when we say we merely lack belief (those of us who hold that position), we're lying.

You've been making this nasty insinuation for years, but the last thing I would expect from you is acknowledgment that you were mistaken and a long overdue apology for your uncharitable assessment of our honesty.