A Serious Question For Theists

[Rampant.A.I.]

The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.

So basically the "rationalist" can accept the lack of any evidence because the evidence that doesn't exist is "logically consistent." Um. Ok. That's very intellectual. Almost like saying that belief in God's existence is justified because there's so many reasons not to believe.

Welcome to Frodo's logic class, where every statement is backed by logic! Please take a banana cumberbund the purple soda, frog blast the vent core?

---

How precisely does one gather information without using one's senses? It's my contention that rationalism and empiricism cannot stand alone - or at the very least, are weak when they do.

I'll also note that I've yet to see you put forth a sound rational argument for belief.

You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.

Claim: "God is"
Empiricist response: no empirical evidence
Rationalist response: consider evidence and weigh up possibilities.

The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.

The empiricist cannot move past the fact that there cannot be independently verifiable evidence. He remains with a null answer.

Now you guys say that this isn't a rational explanation exactly because you are illogically married to the notion that there has to be some empirical evidence for any idea to have merit.

---

So your position is no atheist on this forum has ever discussed ontological arguments?

That's funny, could've sworn...

I wrote "most atheists". You wrote "no atheist".

Honesty is important rampant.

It is, unfortunately it's also a quality you appear to utterly lack. The KCA has been defeated 3 times in formal debates, on this board, where Jeremy Walker failed to justify the first premise logically.

Please name a single member of the board who was present at the beginning of the universe, and questions the first premise of the KCA based only on strict empirical evidence.

---

So, like Cthulhu said, bring forth the rational argument for God.

This shows a misunderstanding of the subject, and that you didn't read or didn't understand what I said above.

Translation: I realize I don't have one, so I'm going to bullshit my way out of my assertions. Hold my drink why I backpedal furiously.

If there could be an independently verifiable way of proving God then you wouldn't need to believe (in the religious sense) that he existed. You would know.

Translation: I believe, but the burden of proof is on you. I can't think of a good argument for God, but I really like believing in God, so beliefs are important because I have them.

The process to belief is the consideration of information. A purely rational (because none of this information is empirically verifiable) process.

Translation: here's some more bullshit, because I don't have any particularly compelling reason to believe other than I want to believe. I'm going to continue asserting that my belief is rational, without giving you any reason to consider it as such, and as I have done in the past, will probably be claiming I proved belief in God is rational in a couple pages, due to arguments I never gave.

The information is subjective/ is dependent on the perspective of the observer. If you were to adopt the perspective of the observer, then the information would be true for you.

Translation: I believe God exists, so if you shut your brain off and assume I'm right, it will become apparent that I think I'm right, therefore I'm right.

The rationalist is able to assume the perspective of the observer and verify to an extent the observers claims. They can then understand the advantageous possibilities of the observers point of view.

Translation: I'm right I'm right, because I'm right and I think I'm right, therefore rationally, I must be right.

Here is the rational process:
Information > intellectual assent > action
This is faith as defined in the Christian tradition.

Translation: If you think like I think and believe what I believe, you'll believe what I believe.

I suspect though that you're actually saying that you wish to withdraw from the conversion. And that's fine by me.

I shat all over your chess board without even moving a pawn, and knocked over your queen and knights with my tail feathers. You admit defeat, and that I am a chess champion, don't you?