Theists - what convinced you?

[fr0d0]

What do you think Einstein

If I knew, I wouldn't be asking, genius. Answer the damn question.

From basic understanding to in depth understanding.

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.

Saying something is unknowable is assigning value to it. You're also making the case that this is necessarily so, and such a thing demands evidence. How do you know God is unknowable? What rationale did you use to get to such a conclusion? Be specific please.

You seem to have specific trouble with questions dealing with evidence.

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

It would be nice if your definitions of God didn't contradict themselves and you picked the ones that you felt worked for you, since we're doing a personal cherry picking session of celestial traits.

Because to you fact is fact and unshakeable? So you are 'cherry picking' scientific theory to fit your world view. I see.

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

You missed the point entirely, and I'll repeat this once more:

This definition of God contends that he is neither existent or non-existent. This violates laws of logic. Let alone the zero explanatory value this holds, and the fact that these attributes seem to come from nothing but assumption.

That would be God© Tav right?

In my reasoning God is not an apple.

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 was actually wondering when the hell you were going to answer my question of what argument, event, or series of events (can be a long process) convinced you of God's existence.

Nothing <----- read that carefully and let it sink in... 'convinced' me of God's existence. The thought that you think this is so is very amusing.

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

So your evidence is a book you don't take literally and can't validly assess.

Yea, makes perfect sense.

To take it literally would be foolish - I presume you're not suggesting that anyone should. And it's external validity would be illogical if it were externally assessable... this doesn't make sense to you?!?

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

...

No wordplay here, I asked you a straight question.

Sidelining the topic, as I pointed out.

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

It is.

Oh yea?

but how could anyone be logically 'convinced' of his existence?

If it's a part of the equation, what logically convinced you?

How many times are you going to make that absurd request before you realise the absurdity of it?? I'm tired of repeating this point. NOBODY CAN BE CONVINCED OF GOD's EXISTENCE. Ever heard of FAITH?

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.

I'll give you an example:

A person hears an argument that is logically sound in favor of God. From then on, that person becomes a believer. No supernatural phenomenon had to occur for that person to believe in the deity's existence.

That isn't " a specific event, revelation, or series of events that led you to your belief" - those are rational thought processes identical to what I just said.

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.

Yes, my whole fucking question is WHAT INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED TO YOU?

And you ask this dumbass question after assessing the information presented to you. You suck dude.

You're ranting an raving and devoting time to something that doesn't require it. I'm asking you simple questions, and you boast about having the logical position, so fucking demonstrate it.

Read it again. I stated that neither of us has a superior logical position.

---

lol @ the first cause argument.

Quality argument Dis.