Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[MindForgedManacle]

You have never addressed them. You don't even start to address the subject at hand, because you have no understanding of it.

And you're evidence of that assertion is? In every response to you I've directly addressed your claim of there being some set, definitive Christian view. Again, you are being very dishonest here to say otherwise, given that even in your quote of me I do this.

I know that those philosophers disagree with the mainstream view. That's pretty much their point given their discipline to explore all alternatives.

So here we have an obvious backpedal on your part. You've constantly been saying their is a specific Christian view on this. And you've now dropped to it being "mainstream". But the problem is that what that actually means is, as I said in my last post, you are simply saying that in YOUR particular socio-religious context thisis the prevalent view, which is most likely Anglo-American and Protestant.

And no, the individuals in question weren't merely 'exploring all the alternatives', they were giving their views on the topic at hand and gave arguments in support of it.

They happen to be wrong, and this is widely agreed.

How do you know they're wrong? It simply being "widely agreed" that they're wrong is not an argument, and is in fact an argumentum ad populum fallacy to pretend otherwise. Unlike you, these individuals actually atrempted to give a rational justification of their views on the rationality (or lack thereof) of faith.

I have little interest in philosophy because it is mostly nonsensical naval gazing. The subject here is theology, and the mainstream view contradicts the 4 'major' protagonists of philosophy... So what!?

...So, you are even more ignorant than I realized. What do you think underpins and guides theology? Hm? Oh yeah, philosophy. Arguments for the existence of god? Based entirely in philosophy. Theological explications of God-related topics like the Trinity? Philosophical speculations as to God's ontology. Ryft's account of what he thinks the relationship between faith and rationality? Theological epistemology, which is a purely philosophical pursuit.

Please, know your OWN traditions' foundation before you further make a fool of yourself.
Further, these aren't the "4 major protagonists of philosophiy", and are not even the most influential Christian philosophers/theologians. Effectively everything YOU believe about Christianity is derived from the philosophical speculations of St. Augstine of Hippo or St. Thomas Aquinas. Again, get your theological tradition straight.

I'm not assuming that this is the Christian view as you keep arrogantly asserting. I know it is. Through study of my subject. I'll not saying that it's the only view. There are plenty people who believe irrationally. It may not be the philosophical view, but who cares? Christians certainly don't.

Lol, you're not assuming, you just happen to know it's true but have entirely evaded evidencing that and worse, ignore counter-evidence in a stupid way because it didn't suit your belief. How quaint.

Ryft would explain it to you in your own discipline, and I was trying to link you with him but he's offline at the moment.

I doubt he could without begging the very question you have continuously.

---

No offense taken and most likely your understanding of philosophy will exceed mine. The questions are aimed at trying to understand a person's perspective. Unlike yourself, not everyone states their perspective in their 'religious view.' Some people believe that the physical world is an illusion. That while we can touch, taste, see, etc. things they don't really exist. To them our senses are not 'reliable'. Others, and I'll assume yourself included, would hold that all there is is the physical world. Two very different conversations.

Don't mean to come off, as I likely did, as antagonistic to you. Little tired from work/studying for mid-terms.
And i should be clear that I have no clue as to your level of knowledge of philosophy, and I myself am a first-year philosophy student, though interested i n the discipline for a bit longer than that.

I put that as my religious view because it entails my religious view as well.

By 'reliable' I mean trustworthy and unchanging.

Well then unless we're going the whole 9-yards and doubting memory too, it seems clear we have good inductive grounds for our senses' reliability as you define it.

We've never discussed before so please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position. From a naturalist perspective haven't you already ruled out the possibility of God before asking the question? If you presuppose the physical is all that is, then there cannot be anything non-physical.

Actually, I have ruled out the possibility of God's existence. However, I did not/do not do so merely because of a presupposition that non-physical things cannot exist. I don't think the God concept, as has been presented to me, is logically coherent, and I find many faults in all of the arguments for God's existence as well.