The God Assumption

[fr0d0]

Doesn't the reasonableness of the solution depend upon its accuracy compared to other solutions? We should take the most logical solution until another is presented.

Objectively it's not a good solution. And theologically that's the right answer.

---

You don't assume that "God" is a coherent word, you understand that it is. The concept of "God" is a logically coherent one.

I find nothing about the concept of God to be logical. What makes sense about it?

The world makes sense considering God, and never the other way around.

A world under God makes sense...if we assume God exists and every detail we've learned about God is factual.

I think you answered your own question

[Simon Moon]

You don't reason _to_ God, you reason _from_ God.

You don't assume that "God" is a coherent word, you understand that it is. The concept of "God" is a logically coherent one.

So, basically you have presuppose a god exists, in order to base your reason on said presupposition.

And this is different from gullibility how?

Of course an atheist position would be to discredit that. Hence the endless attmpted refutations of biblical logic in presenting what is clearly defined.

Skipping a few steps there, aren't you?

Like proving ANY god exists before defining his/her/its/their attributes. Those attributes being the god described in the bible.

This is ass about face because of the above: The world makes sense considering God, and never the other way around.

The universe makes complete sense without a god. Which universe are you referring to?

[Angrboda]

Epistemology

I
Kick at the rock, Sam Johnson, break your bones:
But cloudy, cloudy is the stuff of stones.

II
We milk the cow of the world, and as we do,
We whisper in her ear, "You are not true."

— Richard Wilbur

[Captain Colostomy]

XXII-

so much depends
upon

a red wheel-
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

-W.C. Williams

[Faith No More]

Doesn't the reasonableness of the solution depend upon its accuracy compared to other solutions? We should take the most logical solution until another is presented.

No, the reasonableness of the solution depends upon the positive evidence put forth in favor of it.

Objectively it's not a good solution. And theologically that's the right answer.

I'm not even sure what this means...

[fr0d0]

I'm not even sure what this means...

It gazumped your first answer

[The Reality Salesman01]

Have you ever been to the actual end of a rainbow? You haven't right? Science tells you it's just light, and as your perspective changes, the light will move, right? Conspiracy. Leprechauns create them as guidelines and move the ends to keep you from getting their gold. The rainbow's existance is proof of that. I don't need anything other than that. There is gold, there are rainbows, and they move. You've never been to the end of a rainbow so you can't tell me for certain that I'm wrong, you have no proof. It's a perfectly rational assumption, based on the evidence, that Leprechauns are real. Plus there's tons of acient irish literature backing them up. This is EXACTLY THE SAME THING FRODO! Your logic supports my claim, you must accept its conclusion!

[fr0d0]

No it isn't. Light is a much better explanation, so we go with that one.

[The Reality Salesman01]

No it isn't. Light is a much better explanation, so we go with that one.

Says the scientists. Tsk tsk... Even if light can be understood to make prisms, it still doesn't give any account for the question as to why the rainbows are there at all. My leprechaun theory accounts for that, therefore, I have a more complete worldview. Aleprechaunism can be rejected for being an incomplete worldview pertaining to rainbows.

[Esquilax]

You don't reason _to_ God, you reason _from_ God.

Oh, I don't think we'll be letting you get away with saying that without evidence...

You don't assume that "God" is a coherent word, you understand that it is. The concept of "God" is a logically coherent one.

So's the concept of Darth Vader. Internal consistency isn't the sole criteria for reality. It is, however, the first criteria of a good story.

Of course an atheist position would be to discredit that. Hence the endless attmpted refutations of biblical logic in presenting what is clearly defined.

What's your point here? What's so great about things being defined? I can define something in excruciating detail without it being in any way true.

This is ass about face because of the above: The world makes sense considering God, and never the other way around.

"God must be real, because I don't understand how things work!"

Or possibly, "God must be real, because I can't be bothered finding out how things actually work!"

Oh no, I got this: "God must be real, because we don't know everything yet!"

The world makes sense considering god in a very surface sense. Why? Because magic works as an excuse for anything! Why is the sky blue? Magic! Why does air exist? Magic! Where did my socks go? Magic!

Wanna know something crazy? People have been using this same shoulder-shrugging excuse for their ignorance for centuries. The unifying factor is that when the answer is actually discovered, it has never turned out to be god.

Also, in a real, deep sense, the universe makes no more sense with a god in it than it does without, and I'll tell you why: God doesn't actually explain shit. Oh, in your worldview god might be the what answer to your questions, but "what?" isn't a useful answer to a "why?" or a "how?" question. When we ask "how was the universe formed?" and you answer with "god," it's the equivalent of my asking "how are hotdogs made?" and you answering "meat."

Yes, I fucking know there's meat involved, but I didn't ask that. I asked how, and you haven't come anywhere near answering that. Unless you've got some details on how your god creates, or does the things he does, then you have absolutely no grounds for saying god makes things make sense!

You would be denying your son intelligent thought in denying this.