RE: Trying to Apply the Ontological Argument in Real Life
April 11, 2017 at 5:46 pm
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2017 at 5:57 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 11, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Lek Wrote: It's more like this:
Christian: God has revealed himself to me.
Atheist: How do you know it's God who revealed himself to you?
Christian: I just know it's God.
Atheist: Can you prove it?
Christian: No. You weren't there to experience it with me.
Atheist: Well, I don't believe it. If he comes to me and convinces me personally, or if you come up with concrete scientific evidence, then I might believe he exists. I still might not follow him though. Your God isn't even nice.
Christian: All I can say is that when God reveals himself to you then you know it's God.
I have some questions about this.
Do you believe that every Christians that claims that the Christian god has revealed himself to them, is being accurate in their claim? I'm not saying they are lying, only that they may be mistaking about a natural (not god created) brain state.
What about people of other religions that claim their god has revealed himself to them, who are equally as convinced as you are? How do I go about differentiating their 'mistaken' (according to you) assessment of their god's revelation to them, from your 'accurate' assessment of your god's revelation to you?
Quote:Atheist: Well, I don't believe it. If he comes to me and convinces me personally, or if you come up with concrete scientific evidence, then I might believe he exists. I still might not follow him though. Your God isn't even nice.
Not sure why you have a problem with this? How many other existential claims, besides your god claims, do you think your method would lead to accurate results?
How do I go about differentiating your method, from gullibility?
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.
