Ok realm:
Q1) So you think I turn a blind eye to all of the reasons there shouldn't be a God? What reasons might those be?
A1) I could go on and on about reasons not to believe in God, from the problem of evil to the euphero dilemma - but since your beliefs aren't falsifiable or structurally sound there is absolutely nothing to stop you from making up whatever the fuck you want in order to get around the illogic. It's like poking holes in water.
What you should be more concerned with is your own reasons for believing. Are your reasons valid? (meaning they do not permit 1) Contradictory conclusions, 2) Flipping the argument to prove the antithesis, 3) Intentional absurdities. )
If you care about being rational then you need to look critically at the reasons you present for belief, and then determine whether or not your arguments are valid.
Do you have any arguments for the existence of God?
Q2) Who is to say that God did not know something we didn't? All knowing remember?
A1 This is an appeal to mystery, the last resort cop out in theistic arguments. I'm shocked that you arrived there so soon.
So fucking what if God knows something i don't. Can he not achieve his goals without allowing children to suffer and die from starvation? If he is all-good (omni-benevolent) and all-powerful (omnipotent) then he has the power to achieve anything he wants while preventing suffering of the innocent, which isn't what happens.
To put it somewhat more formally:
1) God is omnipotent
2) Suffering of the innocent exists
3) God could achieve his goals without the innocent suffering (or he is not omnipotent)
4) God allows suffering of the innocent
5) Therefore God is not omni-benevolent
And from the other angle
1) God is omni-benevolent
2) God being omni-benevolent would desire that no innocent suffer
3) Suffering of the innocent exists
4) Therefore God does not have the power required to prevent suffering of innocence.
Q3) How do you know you have any relationships?
A3 Relationships with who, God? And what sort of relationship? I'll assume you mean inter-personal.
I know i don't have a relationship with a God because i have no communication or interaction with any such being.
Q4) Firstly, what sort of alternative did you have in mind? And are you telling me, that if you had a personal experience with God, that wouldn't be enough?
A4) Absolutely. Firstly, my experience of God is going to contradict the experience had by many other people. Because two or more contradictory concepts of God cannot be true, therefore either only one of us is correct or nobody is. If i am to suppose that my experience is true then i have essentially declared that my experience was more important and more accurate than those of the other people who have contradictory conclusions - yet i have no reasons for assuming this position.
Secondly, I have no way of knowing that this experience isn't a delusion, and since there is no possible distinction between an actual experience and such a delusion then I have no reason for assuming the former is true. If multiple people can have contradictory experiences then all but one, if not all, have had delusions.
Do i have any reasons for assuming my experience is more valid? Consider especially than there is no way of verifying these experiences.
Q1) So you think I turn a blind eye to all of the reasons there shouldn't be a God? What reasons might those be?
A1) I could go on and on about reasons not to believe in God, from the problem of evil to the euphero dilemma - but since your beliefs aren't falsifiable or structurally sound there is absolutely nothing to stop you from making up whatever the fuck you want in order to get around the illogic. It's like poking holes in water.
What you should be more concerned with is your own reasons for believing. Are your reasons valid? (meaning they do not permit 1) Contradictory conclusions, 2) Flipping the argument to prove the antithesis, 3) Intentional absurdities. )
If you care about being rational then you need to look critically at the reasons you present for belief, and then determine whether or not your arguments are valid.
Do you have any arguments for the existence of God?
Q2) Who is to say that God did not know something we didn't? All knowing remember?
A1 This is an appeal to mystery, the last resort cop out in theistic arguments. I'm shocked that you arrived there so soon.
So fucking what if God knows something i don't. Can he not achieve his goals without allowing children to suffer and die from starvation? If he is all-good (omni-benevolent) and all-powerful (omnipotent) then he has the power to achieve anything he wants while preventing suffering of the innocent, which isn't what happens.
To put it somewhat more formally:
1) God is omnipotent
2) Suffering of the innocent exists
3) God could achieve his goals without the innocent suffering (or he is not omnipotent)
4) God allows suffering of the innocent
5) Therefore God is not omni-benevolent
And from the other angle
1) God is omni-benevolent
2) God being omni-benevolent would desire that no innocent suffer
3) Suffering of the innocent exists
4) Therefore God does not have the power required to prevent suffering of innocence.
Q3) How do you know you have any relationships?
A3 Relationships with who, God? And what sort of relationship? I'll assume you mean inter-personal.
I know i don't have a relationship with a God because i have no communication or interaction with any such being.
Q4) Firstly, what sort of alternative did you have in mind? And are you telling me, that if you had a personal experience with God, that wouldn't be enough?
A4) Absolutely. Firstly, my experience of God is going to contradict the experience had by many other people. Because two or more contradictory concepts of God cannot be true, therefore either only one of us is correct or nobody is. If i am to suppose that my experience is true then i have essentially declared that my experience was more important and more accurate than those of the other people who have contradictory conclusions - yet i have no reasons for assuming this position.
Secondly, I have no way of knowing that this experience isn't a delusion, and since there is no possible distinction between an actual experience and such a delusion then I have no reason for assuming the former is true. If multiple people can have contradictory experiences then all but one, if not all, have had delusions.
Do i have any reasons for assuming my experience is more valid? Consider especially than there is no way of verifying these experiences.
.
