Religious debates often reduce to accusations of justifiable assumptions.
How does one go from Non-belief in a God to a belief in God without making an unjustified assumption?
I've heard a few vague accusations coming from thesits that we make assumptions all the time in our beliefs, but I don't know of any assumption I make that is a pure and blind leap without reason such as using the word "God", and assuming it is a coherent word.
Noticing that there appears to be logical consistency in my experience of the universe seems to give reason for me to assume that logical consistency is true for the universe. However, invoking the word "God" as an entity to which it should be attributed to makes no sense. I don't understand why this is at all necessary or how one can justify it.
I see logical consistency in all my experience.
My intuition tells me this can be expected.
It's quite a jump to add...
A God does not have any properties until I invoke it, and begin attributing to it the origins of all things which I am ignorant to. A really old book tells me that God is not the catch-all for ignorance, but the source of ALL KNOWLEDGE, the book validates my claims of God's personal interest in my life, and gives me credibility in doing so. One's inability to prove it wrong, shows that my belief is more justified than their lack of one. I have answers, they don't, mine must be true. Fair assumption made, no logical crime committed.
That certainly appears to be a bold assumption. There seems to be no correlation with reality that justifies one to invoke the word "God', much less begin to attribute everything unknown to it. I thought that perhaps somebody would like to offer their answers to the following questions with justification...
Does God exist?
Why?
(Keep in mind, the question is not "If God exists, then...")
How does one go from Non-belief in a God to a belief in God without making an unjustified assumption?
I've heard a few vague accusations coming from thesits that we make assumptions all the time in our beliefs, but I don't know of any assumption I make that is a pure and blind leap without reason such as using the word "God", and assuming it is a coherent word.
Noticing that there appears to be logical consistency in my experience of the universe seems to give reason for me to assume that logical consistency is true for the universe. However, invoking the word "God" as an entity to which it should be attributed to makes no sense. I don't understand why this is at all necessary or how one can justify it.
I see logical consistency in all my experience.
My intuition tells me this can be expected.
It's quite a jump to add...
A God does not have any properties until I invoke it, and begin attributing to it the origins of all things which I am ignorant to. A really old book tells me that God is not the catch-all for ignorance, but the source of ALL KNOWLEDGE, the book validates my claims of God's personal interest in my life, and gives me credibility in doing so. One's inability to prove it wrong, shows that my belief is more justified than their lack of one. I have answers, they don't, mine must be true. Fair assumption made, no logical crime committed.
That certainly appears to be a bold assumption. There seems to be no correlation with reality that justifies one to invoke the word "God', much less begin to attribute everything unknown to it. I thought that perhaps somebody would like to offer their answers to the following questions with justification...
Does God exist?
Why?
(Keep in mind, the question is not "If God exists, then...")
