(March 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I know it seems strange, because you guys been using reasoning mainly to refute arguments. But you are so use to refuting arguments, you can't tell a sound argument anymore.
The arguments are valid. And the premises are beliefs you all held and still hold and will rely on. You believe in these things. And you do so while denying it which tells you ought to probably confirm it and come to terms with them.
God may seem frightening in the start, his majesty can make you shiver, but you get use to veil by veil, his beauty, and you will come to know him.
Have belief in Him who you see and know deep inside that he exists, and leave away the noise of the dark forces telling you to cling to a false idol that they made and whisper you that is the "I".
What if the premises are intuitive, but false? I remember as a theist, reading a lot of CS Lewis, and the start of all his arguments would be something like "Can we all agree murder is wrong?" To which the reader hastily replies "Obviously." And then away he'd go, making a very sound argument based of that premise. But the premise, I later realized, is nonsense.
But the reader goes along with the premise too quickly because that's what they've been taught. They mistake their cultural norms for philosophical premises.
The point being, people believing something to be true doesn't make it true.
I think that's one of the reasons religion has stuck so well, is that there is a large group of cultural norms that people will accept as objective truths, or at least behave as if they were objective truths. And if you can get someone to mistake them as objective truths, you can make a lot of solid arguments for a God.
