Theists - what convinced you?

[fr0d0]

I don't want to get into this pointless discussion with you again, but I'll reply this once as you seem to want to ask again...

What finely honed ideas?

What do you think Einstein

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?

To me, your logic is ass about face. To you, it might work, I can't vouch for that as it makes no sense to me. You're talking about 'knowing' the unknowable... wha? You see the absurdity of that I hope.

[quote='fr0d0' pid='63158' dateline='1270749029']
I like the definitions in the summa, and I'd reiterate those.

They clash with the other arguments you "like".

Why would that be a problem? Do I have to subscribe to every single point of everything I like?

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.

There you go looking through the wrong end of the telescope again. And you confuse yourself I think.

God is not an apple, an apple is an apple. Therefore an apple isn't God.

I like the first cause argument.

That's great. Did that convince you of God's existence?

LULZ at the blind ignorance of that question

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?

1. Predominantly biblical text
2. I cannot know, therefore I do not claim to know. I rationally accept and trust it to be true.

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.

You play with words to hide the absurdity of your question. Fine.

...

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?

No

Why isn't being convinced with logic and reason a part of the equation?

It is.

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.

You can describe a specific event, revelation, or series of events that led you to your belief.

Please explain how any of these NON reasons for belief could be construed as purely natural and not supernatural.

In the course of your life you're presented with information which leads you to adopt a position of faith. That's it. You not believing is in entirety you not having the same influence on your thoughts. There is no logic or rationale that would make one position superior to the other, no matter how hard you try to assert the contrary.