Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Logic doesn't actually prove anything

Can you elaborate? I think logic proves many things.

You have shown that you do not understand what logic is.

When it comes to god, we've got nothing.

I see this is from your perspective.

Subjectivist Fallacy.

Nothing that actually supports his/it's existence. Same with pixies, it's probably possible that they exist but do they actually exist? What suggests that they do? Same problem.

Well I believe God is different in the sense he has a relationship to the soul.

You have neither defined nor demonstrated any supporting evidence for either this god or this idea of a "soul".

I believe is is the eternal basis

That doesn't mean anything. It's word salad.

of goodness

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support such an assertion.

, the source of the spirit,

And now you assert, unsupported, a "spirit"-thing.

the ultimate greatness that is the basis to all greatness.

that doesn't even mean anything.

He is a universal foundation of reality.

Nor does that. All that is, is meaningless word salad.

Prixies at most are possible being.

Really? And Crumple-Horned Snorkacks too. that doesn't mean they exist, no matter how much you are going to quibble over "possibilities".

However God is believed

Is he? By whom? Why this sudden and mysterious switch to the Passive Voice?

to be a necessary being,

No, it is not, and the "Argument from Necessity" has been long-debunked. And again, arguments are not evidence.

hence, if he exists, then logic knowing he must exist, is not the same as prixies.

Very poor piece of semantic prestidigitation there, ace.

Sure both questions are valid. I guess we should ask both questions.
Indeed, like the impossible structure - . It's not possible because it violates the laws of physics. So the question if there is one becomes meaningless. So...is it possible for a god to exist?

What do you think? Of course you know my answer (Hint: it's in the OP as well as under my religious views) but what is your answer?

Retreating into "possibilities" is sophistry and bullshit. You are making an extraordinary claim. This requires extraordinary evidence. Without that extraordinary evidence, your "possibilities" are so low as to approach zero.

Do you think Ultimate Greatness is logically possible?

"Ultimate Greatness" is word salad.

---

Ah, sorry about that. I meant: "Clearly you're at least slightly confused [about whether you have knowledge or not] - why use such an error prone method of communication?" But I accept maybe I misunderstood.

Basically I meant why not use a clearer way of conveying this knowledge so that confusion could be more easily dispelled. Presumably this god is aware of such confusion and has the power to clear stuff up, but chooses not to. That is odd. If I contain within me this knowledge, I'm not aware of it. And if this god wants me to have it why not just create me aware of it and prevent situations where I would be unaware? That doesn't make any sense.

Well here is the thing. I think free-will and beliefs go together. Those whom did 9/11 would not have done it, if they didn't believe in what they are doing.

When you chose to believe it is wrong, it's a choice, but it's the right one. Choice doesn't mean it is baseless.

Ofcourse if God wanted everyone to have it, then everyone would have it. But perhaps he wants people to chose to have it, in the same way we chose to believe killing apostates for leaving a religion be it a true one or not, is wrong.

It's a choice. Not everyone does the same choice.

Perhaps he wants you to pull out the sword of God so to speak instead of just being forced to believe he exists. Perhaps he wants you you to chose to recognize him in the midst of the falsehood.

The next thing is aside from the soul being given properly basic knowledge, there is no way else to know about God really.

Suppose he writes in the sky that he exists, how do you know he is good? how do you know he is loving? how do you know he is great?

For all you know, without knowledge, he is evil, and intends to torture you.

Everything he tells you can be a lie. He can be lying to you.

Even after you die, you don't know if he is telling the truth to you.

So you can see, if we are to have knowledge to him, coming down to us or talking to us or writting in the sky or bringing a million books down from the sky, all would not really prove anything, aside from a creator.

Proving a Creator does nothing, because you know nothing about the Creator.

In other words, you are making up excuses for your made-up gawd figure to hide. How utterly convenient.

---

MysticKnight, you are making many assumptions to justify your belief. The biggest assumption you have made is that your intutition is reliable, and from what I can tell you have justified that with the idea that you believe god would instill this knowledge within you. You are you using intuition to prove god exists, and then saying that your intuition is correct because god exists. This is circular reasoning.

Indeed.

---

If god is outside of the laws of nature, I can't see how he/it's possible.

Care to elaborate?

What is ultimate greatness? Greatness is a concept, but what is it outside of that?

If greatness was just a concept, it would have no value and be empty and void. Rather it describes things we perceive in reality. Ultimate Greatness would be a reality that is ultimately great. It's great to the extent it cannot be greater.

Word. Salad.

---

The biggest assumption you have made is that your intutition is reliable

Not reliable for everything.

You are you using intuition to prove god exists

Not to others though.

, and then saying that your intuition is correct because god exists. This is circular reasoning.

I said that such knowledge would make sense if God exists. I do believe God exists, but I didn't conclude my intuition is correct based on that belief. I simply asked myself if I have properly basic knowledge of God. At the end I conclude based on that properly basic knowledge of God (this is from my perspective).

Which is just as circular and question-begging.