Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Statler Waldorf]

You exhaust me, Statler. Can't you have a conversation without addressing every single point made? I mean would you break down someones speech in such a way during normal face to face conversation?
I ask, because I like you and I'd really like to talk to you, but you literally daunt me into boredom!

I like you too. However, if a person does not want multiple points addressed then why would they try and make multiple points in their post? If I think something is in error, merely interesting, humorous, or something I agree with then I am going to remark upon it. If I did not do this, I’d have people on here whining about how I ignored their point. You know that’d happen!

Oh and also rasetsu is a girl a very, very hot girl.

Thanks, apparently she’s got no life though.

There's a method to his madness. When everyone gets tired if responding to his boring retorts he just sits back and claims victory, as if that was the prize all along.

No, I just feel addressing someone’s argument is a form of proper courtesy.

You need to work better on these quotes... I don't remember what that was about... but I'll work with your reply.

Did I mess the quotes up? I am not seeing that.

Let's say science hasn't measured the sun's temperature... let's go to 100 years ago.

Time travel, I like it.

Now, you tell me that the sun's temperature is one million degrees celsius.
It is an answer to "how hot is the sun?"... it sort of makes sense... it should be very hot.
Is it the correct answer? 100 years ago, I wouldn't know. So I would ask you "how did you arrive at that answer?".

As you can see, an inquisitive mind wants to know the whole process.... not just the answer.... the answer, while making sense, may be inaccurate... and there are many many many wrong answers... and only one right one.
Without the process of arriving at the correct answer, I am not going to accept any answer that may fit my perception...

Let me use your same analogy because I like it. Now what if I told you 100 years ago that the Sun was 5,778K and when you asked me how I knew that I told you that He who made the Sun, knows everything, and cannot lie told everyone that was the answer. Would you still have reason to doubt my answer was correct?

Do you mind elaborating on that "necessary view of reality" and which "things [...] must be true in order for us to learn about the exterior world" and how "the bible makes sense of all there things"?

Sure, there are certain things that must be assumed to be true before we can learn anything about our exterior world. A few examples would be: regularity (past, present, and future) in Natural laws, Universal laws of deduction, the reliability of one’s own memory, and the reliability of one’s own senses. In a universe created by the Christian God not only can we assume that all of these things are true but this assumption also makes perfect sense because these things would be true in any such universe. Now, contrast that with a purely material and unguided universe and we have problems. Yes, we have to assume these things are true, but it really is very unlikely that they would be true in such a universe. This is why the act of denying God’s existence actually undermines our ability to know anything for certain.

Allah is the arabic word for "god". They just insist on using the arabic work to distinguish from any other god... particularly the jew and christian yahweh.... but, down deep, it's the same god. "the one true god".., I read that the qur'an has hundreds of ways to describe that god... I'm sure somewhere in that pot it also accounts for everything in Nature, regularity included.

No, it’s not the same god, they have different attributes. Allah transcends logic and therefore is not required to behave logically, Yahweh behaves logically because it derives from His character and so on.

Still, I couldn't help notice you didn't answer the question...

The question about why God chose to preserve scripture that way? That’s a purely theological question that requires speculation. It’s a very effective way of preserving the text however. Within even 100 years of Christ’s death it was impossible to destroy all of the Christian manuscripts because there were so many of them and they had spread so widely. If there was one single authoritative manuscript it would have been easy for an enemy of the Church to destroy it. If I wanted to ensure that my words lived on I would write thousands of copies of the same letter and send them all over in much the same way.

Because I'm fully aware of a lot of details in the inner working of the human brain, and human society, that can account for all that is believed about a god... and all that has been written about all gods.

So anyone who has written about a god is automatically delusional? That seems rather unfair.

No observable god, more than half the human population not convinced of the existence of that particular god.

I do not see how that is relevant.

Because it relies on belief? No tangible evidence for anything.
Because it may be one of the infinite wrong answers? provided the lack of support and evidence, it does have a damn good chance of being wrong.

I think this could all be used to reject any belief that a person did not want to believe. I do not see how that makes such a rejection rational.

Do you mind elaborating on these?

I think I did above, if not let me know and I will.

Judging by a guy called Hamza, who seems to be somewhat of a youtube muslim celebrity, I'd say allah covers all that.

I’ll have to check it out.

Was I?

Yes sir.

Oh, silly me...
Again, you believe in that... you don't know that. There's a difference there, you agree?

Well knowledge is usually defined as justified belief, and it seems I have justification for those beliefs.

But... what if... what if... what was written wasn't true?
The description of the god wasn't true. Then, "who cannot tell a lie" isn't exactly like that...
The account of Moses wasn't true. Then... "the one who knows everything and made everything" isn't exactly like that...

Then all knowledge would be impossible.

The story... is just a story to entertain children..

It’s hardly a child-friendly story now is it?

One more reason not to assume that the story is correct.

Surely, that possibility has crossed your mind, no?

Sure, until I figured out that it has to be true.

Indeed and they all describe exactly all the steps they took to arrive at their destination.
While your story presupposes the existence of a god. No where is it stated how to determine the nature of this god, in an unbiased, non-psycho-fallacious way.

And how do you know that they indeed took those steps? Eventually you’re going to have to just take their word for it.

My standard aims to remove such fallacies that arise in the human brain.

I am unaware of any such fallacy, does it have a name?

In a 20-D space live a race of entities.
They are born, live, and die, much like us. They breed by matching 4 entities' "genetic" material to produce one offspring. These kids grow, go to their schools, do homework, college... work, etc.
One of these kids had a Uni assignment: to build a 3+1D universe with regularity that could be self sustainable.... so he did. And, being a perfectionist, decided to kick-start the whole thing in such a manner as to spark sentient life in a few corners of this universe.

There you go. Now tell me how this story is flawed and misses the whole regularity detail....

Well for one you never even mentioned regularities so I am not following how it explains those. Secondly, how do you know any of this? What’s your source of revelation? How does this account for future regularity? Lastly, it does not seem like this explanation can explain our moral imperatives.

String theory aims to describe everything as strings, and different vibrations of these strings represent different particles... So the strings explain the regularity.

What ensures that the strings remain regular?

It does have a high likelihood of being the incorrect answer, remember?

I am not following that. I also do not believe people reason this way at all.

A: “How did you get to my house?”
B: “I drove.”
A: “I did not see you drive up.”
B: “Well I did.”
A: “Well there are many possible ways you could have gotten here, and yet only one correct way therefore it is far more likely that you did not actually drive here therefore I do not believe you and you are a liar.”
B: “I am driving back to work now and taking the pizza you ordered with me sir.”

yes, I know... nothing is analogous to yahweh...

Bingo.

dammit, I forgot to time this... oh well, doesn't matter... half an hour, or so...

Seemed like 10 minutes! I went and got something to drink and came back and you had already responded.