Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[fr0d0]

I never refuse to quantify them rampant. Philosophy may use rational means... that doesn't prevent it from producing some pretty off the wall results.

[MindForgedManacle]

I presented the reasoning. Your counter was "this is not true because I have these examples that disagree, even though your quote already discounted them". I see no reasoning from you at all.

As I said, begging the question. My counter was more like "Claiming a definitive Christian view on the rationality of faith is absurd given these examples of MAJOR Christian thinkers who rejected such a claim". You presented no good reasoning at all, you simply said they happen to be wrong. The closest thing you gave was Ryft's account, which this whole thing has been a response to, since you've seemingly just been referencing it.

Never did I claim exclusivity, but that seems to be your point. Great. Let's move on.

Oh, so all those times you were claiming there was only one Christian view on this - which you later modified to only one "true" view on this - you were just mispeaking? Right.


Bit it's worse than that. The acceptance that faith can - or must be irrational - is VERY common. After all, what's the most common response Christians give when something tragic or appalling happens, and people ask "Why did God allow this?"

Oh right, the usual answer is "You've just got to have faith." In other words, rationality is not a requirement of faith for many, if not most, Christians, and certainly not at all times. Based on your 'reasoning', you must accept this as the true Christian view given its prevalence.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I never refuse to quantify them rampant. Philosophy may use rational means... that doesn't prevent it from producing some pretty off the wall results.

Right, like apologetics and theology.

[fr0d0]

You're addressing a superficial definition of faith commonly held by the ignorant. Ignorance is prevellant everywhere.

Never have you addressed my point that the philosophers that you cite could be taking about something else. I'm totally disinterested in reading them as they don't address my faith, only philosophy.

---

Why should apologetics and theology not also fall foul occasionally rampant?

[Mudhammam]

In the past few days I've witnessed three different Christians reject the literal teachings of the Bible and embrace a form of Christianity that basically amounts to relativism... basically it means whatever it is a person wants it to mean at any given moment. As easy as it is to laugh at the faithful over their confusion over what their own holy book says, I have to say... this is progress..

[MindForgedManacle]

You're addressing a superficial definition of faith commonly held by the ignorant. Ignorance is prevellant everywhere.

A further backpedal from your earlier claims. First you held "the true" Christian view, then yiu held the mainstream one and now you apparently hold a view that is apparently not the common view, as only the ignorant hold it.

*slow clap*

You see, you're making progress.

Never have you addressed my point that the philosophers that you cite could be taking about something else.

I'm sorry, but you are being ridiculous here and seems rather dishonest. They are NOT talking about something different, they explicitly talk about the relationship between rationality and faith in Christianity. That's why I told you to read Kierkegaard's book "Fear and Trembling" because that's what the book's central theme explores.

I'm totally disinterested in reading them as they don't address my faith, only philosophy.

Except they do. Each of them goes through an investigation of faith to give their reasons why they think in some sense it must be irrational. They directly address your faith. Just saying that they don't is merely you demonstrating your ignorance of their writings, which aren't merely about philosophy.

Why should apologetics and theology not also fall foul occasionally rampant?

To do apologetics is to defend a particular theological and philosophical position.

[Jacob(smooth)]

In the past few days I've witnessed three different Christians reject the literal teachings of the Bible and embrace a form of Christianity that basically amounts to relativism... basically it means whatever it is a person wants it to mean at any given moment. As easy as it is to laugh at the faithful over their confusion over what their own holy book says, I have to say... this is progress..

Keep watching, who knows what you may see

[Rampant.A.I.]

You're addressing a superficial definition of faith commonly held by the ignorant. Ignorance is prevellant everywhere.

A further backpedal from your earlier claims. First you held "the true" Christian view, then yiu held the mainstream one and now you apparently hold a view that is apparently not the common view, as only the ignorant hold it.

*slow clap*

You see, you're making progress.

Never have you addressed my point that the philosophers that you cite could be taking about something else.

I'm sorry, but you are being ridiculous here and seems rather dishonest. They are NOT talking about something different, they explicitly talk about the relationship between rationality and faith in Christianity. That's why I told you to read Kierkegaard's book "Fear and Trembling" because that's what the book's central theme explores.

I'm totally disinterested in reading them as they don't address my faith, only philosophy.

Except they do. Each of them goes through an investigation of faith to give their reasons why they think in some sense it must be irrational. They directly address your faith. Just saying that they don't is merely you demonstrating your ignorance of their writings, which aren't merely about philosophy.

Why should apologetics and theology not also fall foul occasionally rampant?

To do apologetics is to defend a particular theological and philosophical position.

A flawed position in need of an entire discipline to defend it, unlike any other area of philosophy.

It begins with the presumption that a set of beliefs are correct, and seeks (unsuccessfully) to defend them. Apologetics is the inverse of the application of logic and reason to discover justified true beliefs about the world.

Furthermore, this "if any philosophy is flawed all of it is equally flawed" angle is another ridiculous attempt at switching the burden of proof around to those who don't presuppose truth without investigation, so that none need be provided by those who do.

It is an entire field based on special pleading.

[orangebox21]

Don't mean to come off, as I likely did, as antagonistic to you. Little tired from work/studying for mid-terms.

Understandable, I remember what that was like.

By 'reliable' I mean trustworthy and unchanging.

Well then unless we're going the whole 9-yards and doubting memory too, it seems clear we have good inductive grounds for our senses' reliability as you define it.

For my clarification, from what premise are you deducing the conclusion 'our senses are reliable and trustworthy' from?

Actually, I have ruled out the possibility of God's existence. However, I did not/do not do so merely because of a presupposition that non-physical things cannot exist.

Out of curiosity how did you rule out the possibility of God's existence? Secondly, if you believe that non-physical things cannot exist how do you account for universal laws of logic? They are non-physical things.

I don't think the God concept, as has been presented to me, is logically coherent, and I find many faults in all of the arguments for God's existence as well.

Would you care to share one of the logically incoherent arguments for God's existence that has been presented to you?

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Evidence for God does not exist. /everythingIhavetosay #goaheadfuckerprovemewrong