Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

Hello Rabbit. Sorry for the short break - I had to go sort out some stuff for my Mother (she lives some distance away) and was offline for the weekend as a result.

OK, I was being impatient I guess.

I didn't mean that applying logic to everything religious was illogical.. I meant: applying the same logical reasoning that faith does not require proof

What IS the LOGICAL reason for this claim?

...to the whole of religion was illogical.

Further down you acknowledge truth of (6) "belief in general does not require proof". This is not consistent with what you state here (my recap): "religion in general does not require proof".
The only word that's changed is faith (into religion)? How do you account for this? Why religion (~ institutionalized belief) does not require proof but faith does?

"argumentum ad populam (appeal to the masses)."
YOU SAID my reply went against standard Christianity. I was simply refuting that.

My reason for identifying an ad populam is the second part of your sentence "You're singling me out for something universally accepted and doctrinal". With this you bring in the argument of authority of the masses. What else would it matter to this debate if it is 'universally accepted doctrine'? This was a reaction on my question "what IS the basis to choose your christian god?". By giving me the above reply you strongly suggest that it is so because it is 'universally accepted'. So isn't it obvious that I am left to conclude that the basis for you to choose your christian god is that it is a universally accepted? If it is not a reason for you, than you haven't really answered that question. So is a reason for you to choose from all possible gods your christian god because it is universally accepted doctrine or not?

It matters not to me if I'm in the majority or minority. My challenge was for you to find one example to refute my position (that any Christian has actual conclusive, verifiable proof of God's existence), which you have not.

That is a clear (but possibly unintended) straw man. Nowhere in this thread have I asserted that any christian has actual conclusive, verifiable proof of god's existence. This surely is ridiculous because it should be clear by now that I defend an atheistic stance. I have asserted that throughout history christians (more specifically christian theologians) HAVE ASSERTED to have proof for it. Do you register the difference? ASSERTING proof is not quite the same as HAVING conclusive proof. And this time I'm gonna require total accuracy from you, because this misinterpretations of my words is going on for a considerable amount of posts now. I take it you need not another clarification of what my statement was. Anyway it ran:
"Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god."

You're completely off subject suggesting that I believe something simply because it's popular. That's a completely nonsensical conclusion. Nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. And couldn't be further from the truth.

Your own phrasing suggested it to me. Please try to be articulate in your answers.

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

So you say our universe and everything in it is not provable. It certainly is provable within the highest standard of provability: science. To say that it is not provable means you use another standard of provability, please explain which standard you are using.

Absolutelt not. You completely misunderstand again. 'Not provable' as in made by God or not.. is what I'm saying.

This again is a consequence of your own inaccurate phrasing:
"The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable."
You do not state here: "The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. And the creation of the universe by god is not provable."
It would be strange to conclude that, because the subject of creation of the universe by god is quite different from the subject of the existence of god. In other words you insert a totally new unsubstantiated claim, that not only the existence of god is unprovable, but also that his creation of the universe is not provable. Claims that I btw totally adhere to. But the validity of these claims is no reason to conclude from it that the existence of god and his asserted creation of the universe are anywhere near the truth.

I'm happy with it that people belief without conclusive proof but I'm sceptical about the idea that the choice of a SPECIFIC belief, such as a monotheistic belief, out of the vast array of all possible beliefs (such as non-theistic or polytheistic beliefs) needs no other justification than the choice itself. This is a what Dennett would identify as a skyhook, from all possibilities a particular possibility is claimed out of nowhere. This is illogical and certainly is NOT rationalisation, which you claim it to be.

Like I've said, you are absolutely right that faith is indiscriminate. Faith would support belief in the nonsensical right through to the supremely sensible. What divides these potential beliefs is the resultant belief set and not the subject of faith. this is how believers logically discern between them. Yes yes yes, there is not reason from the faith statement alone to believe anything. Faith doesn't work alone.

The only conclusion is that you think your faith is true because your faith (the resultant belief set) says so. I'm glad you've opened up on this, athough it being a nonsensical conclusion.

You seem to assert that the answer on A is positive:
A+: "faith in the existence of the christian god does not require proof"
But not the positive answer on B:
B+: "faith in general does not require proof"

So from the above, you see I think A+ and B+ are the same. So you are wrong.
It seems you need to re-calibrate your lasers but I'll carry on just in case it'd be helpful to you.

So let's be clear. You say A+ and B+ are the same. Well my friend, everybody here on the forum can see that they are quite different. They not only differ in number of words, but also the word "general" stands out as a difference to "the existence of the christian god". What's more, B+ covers a vastly greater set of beliefs, it includes the belief in Zeus and his divine offspring, Thor, Zoroaster and also the belief in purple rabbits from the 26th dimension. So how precisely does that lot fit in with "the christian god"?

A++: "the existence of the christian god does not require proof and is a true statement"
Constantly in your answers there is that mix of A+ and A++.
If I am wrong about this please say so.

A++ - I'm far more tentative with my assertion that this is a truth, but I would apply the truth to all faith, not singling it out to Christianity alone. It simply seems to fit the way God is defined in Christianity for one. Unless I am mistaken.

So all faiths are equally true. That is the most preposterous nonsense covered in this thread as of yet. So Zeus created everything and rules the world, and the christian god does, with Thor at his side, while Vishnu in his department is calling the shots, Zoroaster is calling all shots equally forceful, meanwhile the purple rabbit by accident created the universe.

What IS your definition of god? Be aware, by defining god in terms of unprovable your reasoning will become circular.

So we're talking hypothetical reasoning that is also provable?
I take the definition of God as outlined in the Christian Bible. I also find God defined in an infinite other sources but perhaps you could get your teeth into that one. The reasoning is consistent to the nature of this God.

Does it say in the bible that the existence of god is unprovable. If yes, in what verse?

1) belief in the existence of the christian god does not require proof to subscribe to it
2) the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true
3) the existence of the hindu gods does not require proof to be true
4) the existence of the christian god a) is true AND b) does not require proof
5) the existence of the christian god a) is true BECAUSE it does not require proof
6) belief in general does not require proof
7) the existence of the christian god does not require belief to be true
8) the existence of hindu gods does not require belief to be true

Which of these assertions in your opinion are true statements, which of them are false?

True: 1, 2, 3, 6.

Is it right to conclude from this that according to you 4, 5, 7 and 8 are false?