Why do you not believe in God?

[Ryantology]

I guess the best answer I have is that I can't anymore, and even if I could, it has been years since belief has given me anything resembling comfort and peace of mind.

For me it was a gradual process, and it was not the arguments of atheists which did it. I worked this out mostly on my own. I feel better now.

[Jeffonthenet]

I am not. I am saying justifying logic by logic is circular. I accept logic, but not on the basis of logic. To say, as Taq, we know logic is true because it has been tried and therefore works, seems to me to assume logic.

The argument, it seems to me, is something like this

1. Things that are true are things that work in reality
2. Logic works in reality
3. Therefore basic logic is true

However to even go from 1 to three you must assume logic is true as you use logic to make any inference. It used to be philosophers thought you could demonstrate truths by reason alone, and this has failed, which is partly what led to post-modernism.

We know logic by intuition, and so it is also possible that this is how we can know God.

But we can test logic, and it holds up. When it doesn't our understanding of logic changes. We can't truly test God. When we do try, it doesn't hold up. Yet we're still supposed to retain the same understanding of God, according to religious doctrine, regardless of the fact that it doesn't stand up to the test.

I assume logic because logic has proved itself in my eyes. God has not. Therefore, unless you prove God then I will not assume God by default.

About logic, it seems to me that we cannot test it without assuming it. For example, you say that you test logic. How do you do this? I would guess it is something like this: When I observe the outside world I see that logical principles are never violated therefore logic is (or probably is) true.

However the therefore indicated a logical inference. Without "therefore," all you have is "when I observe the outside world I see that logical principles are never violated." However, from this fact you can conclude nothing about logic without using logic. You can add, "logic is probably true," but you cannot use as evidence your "testing" without logic and therefore circularity. As far as I can tell, there is no way to connect the statement without a "therefore," or some other word indicating logical inference. (which would be circular) In other words, without logic all you have are statements or observations from which nothing can be concluded because you need logic to conclude things from statements and observations.

However, I am almost desirous of granting you for the sake of argument that the logic example is bad as there are clearer things that we all rationally believe which we do so apart from evidence and argument. I don't say we believe it for no reason, but the reason is not verbalizable evidence, it is more like intuition. One such thing is the reality of the past. As the great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (who I think first thought this up) said,

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago. ”

—Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159–60)

Can anyone offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of the past?

If not, I think you should agree with me that we believe things justifiably based on intuition rather than argument or verbalizable evidence.

---

Because the concept doesn't really add up. The bible for examples has many teachings, stories and claims that just don't add up or in fact contradict each other one way or the other.

Personally, I believe in the Christian God but I do not believe that the bible is without error. Perhaps this is an option for you.

Further more i don't need a "church" to tell me how to be a friendly being, i know what is seen as proper and adequate so no thanks spare me the lectures.

Sadly, this is the way some Churches operate. However, there is way more to the Christian faith than doing good works. The traditional protestant view (not that I am its biggest fan) is actually that the gospel is the message that good works do not get one into a right standing before God.

Creation is another thing. As a young boy i read about evolution and the big bang two concepts i found very interesting and very believable

There are many Christians who accept evolution like the great scientist Francis Collins. Likewise even many conservative Christians accept the big bang such as William Lane Craig who uses it to argue for the existence of God. It is a quite serious argument. There is a long page in Stanford's Philosophical Encyclopedia on it,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmol...-argument/

Despite the suspenders, you may find this more layperson-applicable presentation interesting,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPpFnTWoFt8

[Angrboda]

Technically speaking, generalization from observation requires inductive inference, not logical inference/deduction. Inductive inference is not properly speaking a part of logic, so, no, it doesn't close the loop.

(Now whether inductive inference is reliable and under what conditions is another matter entirely.)

[Jeffonthenet]

Technically speaking, generalization from observation requires inductive inference, not logical inference/deduction. Inductive inference is not properly speaking a part of logic, so, no, it doesn't close the loop.

(Now whether inductive inference is reliable and under what conditions is another matter entirely.)

Do you know a lot about this? I am no philosopher, but it seems lot me that any inference requires logic, inductive or otherwise. As far as I can tell, induction only gives you data, and to arrive at any conclusions from the data you need logic.

[Epimethean]

Induction is a form of logical process, as is deduction. Ugh.

[KnockEmOuttt]

Can anyone offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of the past?

Can you offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of god?

[CliveStaples]

Induction is a form of logical process, as is deduction. Ugh.

Mathematical induction is. Inductive reasoning, however, includes things like inferring a general principle from particular examples. Its inferences are not always certain, unlike with mathematical induction.

---

Can anyone offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of the past?

Can you offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of god?

Do you reject both?

[Mystic]

Evidence of the past: We have memory of the past that is reliable.

[CliveStaples]

Evidence of the past: We have memory of the past that is reliable.

So the fact that you believe that the past is reliable...is evidence that the past is reliable?

How do you know that your memory that the past is reliable...is reliable? You're just assuming that it is. Which is circular, and thus disqualifies your argument.

[Mystic]

Evidence of the past: We have memory of the past that is reliable.

So the fact that you believe that the past is reliable...is evidence that the past is reliable?

How do you know that your memory that the past is reliable...is reliable? You're just assuming that it is. Which is circular, and thus disqualifies your argument.

No, the memory is reliable, and the proof of it lies in the memory (properly basic).