RE: Theists - what convinced you?
April 8, 2010 at 5:37 pm
(This post was last modified: April 8, 2010 at 5:38 pm by tavarish.)
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: my opinion:
God is an entity realised slowly throughout human history that has evolved through primitive conceptualisation to the finely honed ideas we enjoy now. The idea of a deity didn't come first it seems, but a grasp of this aspect of humanity.
What finely honed ideas?
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I have in my mind at the moment that quote of a Rabbi a guy in another thread made. "To define God is immediately to limit him". Which I think is a classic faith statement.
It's also a dishonest statement, as you need to assign values to a thing in order to know that such a thing exists. If you didn't understand the attributes of God, how would you know what God is? How would you know that the thing you're referring to is actually God?
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I like the definitions in the summa, and I'd reiterate those.
They clash with the other arguments you "like".
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I also like the Via Negative arguments (defining God from what we can know he is not).
Which just uses baseless assumptions and illogical wording.
Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
Yes, God is both an apple and not an apple.
So much for logic, especially when trying to contemplate an entity's existence.
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I like the first cause argument.
That's great. Did that convince you of God's existence?
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I certainly accept that God 'is' - a timeless entity. He's all powerful, all knowing, three personalities in a single entity (I don't think non trinitarians are Christians), in everything (as he created it), and perfectly loving
1. What reasonable evidence do you have to support this?
2. How do you know this evidence is correct?
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Just so's you know I'm a protestant Christian who agrees with the theory of evolution and detests fundamentalists. I grew up default atheist and then considered atheist. My family aren't religious at all. I converted to Christianity in my late 20's and married a Christian as a believer. I was then an atheist for about 17 years before converting again after discussing religion with atheists on a forum.
Okie dokes.
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: His 'existence' was never a question of importance, belief in him was. Belief in him leads to faith that he 'exists' if you like, but how could anyone be logically 'convinced' of his existence? The question is intellectually absurd.
It is absurd to ask you what evidence you have that a deity you claim to believe in, actually exists. Yes, quite absurd.
...
Do you believe in other things that may or may not be real, but you just take it on faith that they are? If so, what?
Why isn't being convinced with logic and reason a part of the equation?
(April 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. You're poisoning the well trying to pin conversion on supernatural phenomena rather than what you know it really is, the trust and acceptance of information you trust. Or is your memory really that bad?
What the hell are you talking about? Did I say anything about supernatural phenomena anywhere? Stop with the red herrings. I didn't make this set of questions for you alone.
