Why do you not believe in God?

[Jeffonthenet]

How do you define creationism? I think you are conflating creationism with believing God created the world. Likewise everyone who is feminine is not a feminist.

Creationism means that something (the universe, the world, life, etc.) was created by the God of Genesis. I assumed this was standard Christian dogma, since I’ve never met a Christian who didn’t believe in the God of Creation. Do you not agree?

I do believe that God inspired the book of Genesis. However, I don't think believing this necessities a literal interpretation of it. St. Augustine, probably the most influential Christian theologian, long before modern science (4th century A.D.), because of the context of Genesis itself took the days of Genesis to be non-literal.

I never believed based on them, and I cannot think of anyone I know who believes in God based on them.

Maybe. I’ve heard numerous arguments for an intelligent God of Creation, so I assumed that people were making those arguments for some purpose. Maybe they aren’t the sole reason for why people believe, but they must at least think it strengthens their argument for God – otherwise, why bother?

Certianly the people who make these arguments think this. But this is not all Christians.

How am I throwing God into the equation? I say that the way one best knows God exists is by personal experience apart from argument.

You’ve mentioned previously that God could have had a role in evolution, and I explained why I disagree. God doesn’t in any way inform our understanding of evolution. God is irrelevant and unnecessary in the argument. Now we’ve changed the subject to instead understanding God through “personal experience”, which is fine. Except, now I have to ask you: How do I understand God through your personal experience?

I am not throwing God into evolution. We can both affirm that evolution happened in the exact same manner. You seem to think from the data of evolution I infer God, and then conclude that this inference is unjustified. However, I infer God on other grounds, and from the properties of God and the data of science would conclude that God planned evolution to happen. I don't feel the need to say that God tinkered with evolution. I would say that he set up the dominoes so that the random mutations he wanted happened. This would be before evolution ever occurred, perhaps even at the big bang.

The personal experience aspect, I would be surprised if I hadn't mentioned in the first post because it is something important to me. I don't expect you to believe based on my personal experience. However, I do not think that you can likewise discount my testimony of personal experience as you have not experienced it. From my point of view, I would be more than happy if you went from being an atheist to an agnostic. I would consider it a step in the right direction.

Does your standard presuppose the reliability of your sense perception? If so it cannot demonstrate it without being circular.

I think it can. I can certainly rationally explain the means with which I get to the “truth” of something through logic and reason. But this isn’t “my” standard. This is a universal standard to which both you and I subscribe, since we are here engaged in a rational discussion, following those universal rules of logic.

Your evidence for trusting the reliability of your senses is presupposing them, because for you to know that I exist and that reason is universal you must observe the world through your sense perception. You must trust what you receive through your sense perception is actually real in order to have any data with which to argue for its reality.

The logic you quoted below infers that the cause is God from the necessary characteristics of it.

No. Such an inference would be illogical. If you start off with the assumption that God, by definition, is already the premise (the thing you’re trying to prove), then you’re begging the question. (See the previous 30-something posts regarding this argument).

I've talked with people about this before, and I don't have time to read 30 posts, so if you would like to make a point with me you need to make it yourself. I do not mention God in the premise. The argument is this,

1. Nothing can cause itself to exist
2. All space, time, material things began to exist at the big bang
3. Therefore, whatever created the big bang must not be space or in space, must not be time or in time, and must not be material.

A spaceless timeless immaterial being of immense power which created the universe sounds like God to me. I have read and responded in depth to your first post, now it is your turn to deal with the logic I presented here. You seem to be positing a "science of the gaps." All I use is the basic logical principle that something cannot cause itself to exist and the scientific evidence for an absolute beginning to the universe, and there is a good argument for God.

For the sake of moving past this, I’ll accept your argument and call the mechanism that created the universe “God.” Now, why does this mechanism care whether I worship it? In other words, you now have the duty of imposing the other characteristics of the Biblical God onto this universe-creating mechanism. I don't see how that's logically possible.

If you grant me this, in your own words you would have just admitted that God exists. As I said, I would consider this moving in the right direction. I don't think I can convince you that Christianity is true. I would say that believing that there is a God as opposed to believing that there is no God is a big difference and be happy with that.

I’m also not sure what you mean by “science of the gaps.” Can you be more specific?

It is something like saying that all gaps in our knowledge about the world will surely be filled by science in the future. It seems to me a sort of blind faith in science if it is applied to some things like the Kalaam as the scientific evidence as I understand it points to the fact that only a metaphysical immaterial being exists. Science investigates material physical reality and not immaterial nonphysical reality.

However, even if the Kalaam cosmological argument fails, and all others for God do too, all that would follow would be that we have no argument to prove God exists… not that we cannot know God exists or that he does not exist.

Yes. As far as I know, there are no arguments to prove the existence of any gods. But how else, besides reasoning and rational arguments, can you know that God exists? This is why I think, at least for now, a belief in god requires a great deal of faith.

[/quote]

As I have argued, I think we can know things apart from argument such as the reliability of our sense perception, the existence of the past, the reality of basic logical truths, and possibly causality as well. It seems to me that you, and all others, accept these things as true apart from argument. Likewise I think it may be one way how we know God.

There is also the fact of personal experience which it is possible to know God. I am not saying you must accept that I have had an experience of God, I am simply asking you to consider it as a possibility to know something apart from argument.

If you had gone to a far off country and spent time among a primitive culture, you would have experienced their culture. However, say that their tiny living space burned to the ground, and all evidence was gone of their existence. You would not need an argument to prove that their culture existed, and likewise with God, your only evidence would be your personal testimony of experiencing them. In this case, the experience would be your only evidence, and not argument.

Again, though, note that I am not trying to prove that I have had an experience of God, only that it is possible to know something by personal experience apart from argument.