RE: Evidence for Believing
September 24, 2019 at 11:36 am
(This post was last modified: September 24, 2019 at 11:39 am by Simon Moon.)
(September 23, 2019 at 8:28 pm)Lek Wrote:(September 23, 2019 at 8:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yet you and all those billions of people have “revelations” about gods that are entirely mutually exclusive. I just listened to a Christian describe a revelation by god who told him he was not omniscient, or omnipotent, so how do we figure out who’s right? Also, appealing to the number of people who believe something is a fallacy, which has been pointed out to you several times by several people.You can't dismiss it as a fallacy. Testimony of large numbers of people is evidence. According to the Me Too movement, it's enough to destroy people's lives.
As I stated before, people having different descriptions of an indescribable entity isn't strange. Our various ideas and images of God are vehicles that help us go to him. And no, God doesn't have to give us all the same image of him, since any image we have could not describe him.
That sounds like a pretty weak ass god, then.
You're proposing a god, with supposedly immense power and knowledge, who can't even give a consistent image of his existence to his far less powerful creation?
Is he unable or unwilling to do this? If he is unable, then like I said, he's pretty weak. If he is unable, then he can't blame some of his creation for disbelieving he exists.
And the best you can come up with in defense of this, is 'god works in mysterious ways'.
Hopefully you are able to see why we are unimpressed with your 'evidence' and reasoning. Please, at least tell us you are able to see, we are being rational in our disbelief. This is a test of your intellectual honesty.
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.