Theists - what convinced you?

[Disinter]

lol @ the first cause argument.

[fr0d0]

What do you think Einstein

If I knew, I wouldn't be asking, genius. Answer the damn question.

From basic understanding to in depth understanding.

I have in my mind at the moment that quote of a Rabbi a guy in another thread made. "To define God is immediately to limit him". Which I think is a classic faith statement.

It's also a dishonest statement, as you need to assign values to a thing in order to know that such a thing exists. If you didn't understand the attributes of God, how would you know what God is? How would you know that the thing you're referring to is actually God?

To me, your logic is ass about face. To you, it might work, I can't vouch for that as it makes no sense to me. You're talking about 'knowing' the unknowable... wha? You see the absurdity of that I hope.

Saying something is unknowable is assigning value to it. You're also making the case that this is necessarily so, and such a thing demands evidence. How do you know God is unknowable? What rationale did you use to get to such a conclusion? Be specific please.

You seem to have specific trouble with questions dealing with evidence.

Why would that be a problem? Do I have to subscribe to every single point of everything I like?

It would be nice if your definitions of God didn't contradict themselves and you picked the ones that you felt worked for you, since we're doing a personal cherry picking session of celestial traits.

Because to you fact is fact and unshakeable? So you are 'cherry picking' scientific theory to fit your world view. I see.

God is not an apple, an apple is an apple. Therefore an apple isn't God.

You missed the point entirely, and I'll repeat this once more:

This definition of God contends that he is neither existent or non-existent. This violates laws of logic. Let alone the zero explanatory value this holds, and the fact that these attributes seem to come from nothing but assumption.

That would be God© Tav right?

In my reasoning God is not an apple.

I like the first cause argument.

That's great. Did that convince you of God's existence?

LULZ at the blind ignorance of that question

I was actually wondering when the hell you were going to answer my question of what argument, event, or series of events (can be a long process) convinced you of God's existence.

Nothing <----- read that carefully and let it sink in... 'convinced' me of God's existence. The thought that you think this is so is very amusing.

1. Predominantly biblical text
2. I cannot know, therefore I do not claim to know. I rationally accept and trust it to be true.

So your evidence is a book you don't take literally and can't validly assess.

Yea, makes perfect sense.

To take it literally would be foolish - I presume you're not suggesting that anyone should. And it's external validity would be illogical if it were externally assessable... this doesn't make sense to you?!?

You play with words to hide the absurdity of your question. Fine.

...

No wordplay here, I asked you a straight question.

Sidelining the topic, as I pointed out.

Why isn't being convinced with logic and reason a part of the equation?

It is.

Oh yea?

but how could anyone be logically 'convinced' of his existence?

If it's a part of the equation, what logically convinced you?

How many times are you going to make that absurd request before you realise the absurdity of it?? I'm tired of repeating this point. NOBODY CAN BE CONVINCED OF GOD's EXISTENCE. Ever heard of FAITH?

No. You're poisoning the well trying to pin conversion on supernatural phenomena rather than what you know it really is, the trust and acceptance of information you trust. Or is your memory really that bad?

What the hell are you talking about? Did I say anything about supernatural phenomena anywhere? Stop with the red herrings. I didn't make this set of questions for you alone.

You can describe a specific event, revelation, or series of events that led you to your belief.

Please explain how any of these NON reasons for belief could be construed as purely natural and not supernatural.

I'll give you an example:

A person hears an argument that is logically sound in favor of God. From then on, that person becomes a believer. No supernatural phenomenon had to occur for that person to believe in the deity's existence.

That isn't " a specific event, revelation, or series of events that led you to your belief" - those are rational thought processes identical to what I just said.

In the course of your life you're presented with information which leads you to adopt a position of faith. That's it. You not believing is in entirety you not having the same influence on your thoughts. There is no logic or rationale that would make one position superior to the other, no matter how hard you try to assert the contrary.

Yes, my whole fucking question is WHAT INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED TO YOU?

And you ask this dumbass question after assessing the information presented to you. You suck dude.

You're ranting an raving and devoting time to something that doesn't require it. I'm asking you simple questions, and you boast about having the logical position, so fucking demonstrate it.

Read it again. I stated that neither of us has a superior logical position.

---

lol @ the first cause argument.

Quality argument Dis.

[Pippy]

I am on Frodo's side here.

Why do you ask these questions Tav? It certainly isn't that you show a genuine interest in others thoughts. I assume that it is because you enjoy masturbating your superiority complex. You ask what convinced us so that whatever we respond with, you can mock and ridicule. So I, like Frodo said he should have, refuse to take part in your game.

If I may also reiterate that nothing convinced me, that many, many small things lead me to believe. (different tense, yes?)

If I also may, could I turn the question on you? What convinced you that god does not exist? Seriously, because I am interested in your response, what convinced you?

Thanks,
-Pip

[tavarish]

I am on Frodo's side here.

Why do you ask these questions Tav? It certainly isn't that you show a genuine interest in others thoughts. I assume that it is because you enjoy masturbating your superiority complex. You ask what convinced us so that whatever we respond with, you can mock and ridicule. So I, like Frodo said he should have, refuse to take part in your game.

I don't care what you assume. I really don't. I asked for something specific so I can have a basis of how a theist mindset operates. It's certainly helpful when analyzing certain talking points when you know what the person particularly finds a compelling case for God's existence. Unfortunately, what I got is vague and generalized rhetoric and wild claims, like "no one can be convinced of God's existence".

If I may also reiterate that nothing convinced me, that many, many small things lead me to believe. (different tense, yes?)

What are those many, many small things? Can you give a few examples? I'm shooting myself in the foot asking you for evidence of anything, but I guess I don't need my pinky toe.

If I also may, could I turn the question on you? What convinced you that god does not exist? Seriously, because I am interested in your response, what convinced you?

Thanks,
-Pip

I make no positive claim, I bear no burden of proof. I am not convinced a God does not exist because it's not an active belief I hold, and such a claim would require evidence. I am simply unconvinced that he does exist from arguments with those who believe in his existence.

[downbeatplumb]

I like Tav want to gain an insight into the theist mindset, I really have absolutely no idea how anyone can believe this god stuff.
I have, to the best of my knowledge, NEVER believed in god or gods, the whole idea seems so counter intuitive and ridiculous to me that I cant see how intelligent rational people can fall for the obvious cons the religion pull.

I feel like an observer at a fixed card game shouting 'the cards are up his sleeve' and the other players ignore me, keep on playing and losing.

Why.

[Pippy]

It's not an exercise in trying to understand though, it's an exercise in self righteousness and delusion. I can be self important and deluded too!

I don't understand why you guys disbelieve. It is like this universe, this reality, is all a free lunch too you. Oh it's all by chance, blind luck, there is no mystery here.

This school of Atheism (the I'm right, you're wrong school) is best captured in the Million monkeys paradox. You guys seem to beleive that a million monkeys on a million typewriters in a million years would eventually punch out a Sonnet. That randomness can create something of absurd complexity. I choose to disagree. But it gets tiring with the youngins rabbling around the room banging pot lids together pretending that I have a mental deficiency because I choose to disbelieve in the million monkey paradox. We hear you Tav, you think you're smarter/better than some of us, I get it. Move on.

To answer your question, the same thing that made you an Atheist made me a Theist. I saw most of modern popular Atheism as disinformation intent on control. Dawkins is full of shit. So I beleive. Same as reasoning 'the bible is full of shit' (something you could get me to agree with you on) and then using that as evidence to disbelieve in god.

The thing that is wrong with religion is the control, and the division. It is not belief in God that flies people into towers, in fact a belief in God would dissuade someone from such a course of action. It is fanaticism. It is thinking you are right and everyone else is wrong. It is thinking you are better than other people. That is the flaw. And modern Atheism, in many incantations (although it can be polite and respectful) is rude and self righteous. You demand the right to think what you will, and scorn anyone who doesn't think what you think. Consider the double standard there. So go on and on about your hatred for god and his followers, but try to realize you have been compromised. This whole argument is part of the trick. I choose to be unimpressed and curt with you, but respect you right to think freely, as I demand the right to also think freely myself.

thank you for your interest,
-Pip

[Disinter]

To answer your question, the same thing that made you an Atheist made me a Theist. . So I beleive.

So go on and on about your hatred for god and his followers, but try to realize you have been compromised.

I really don't like how you generalize us as self-righteous pricks. Most atheists I've met are not pricks, and your "modern atheism" (whatever that means) statement comes off with a smell of ignorance and not to mention it's incorrect. I'm not going to start an argument, because I don't care what you think (same for everyone else on this planet). However you would fair well to understand a couple of things:

underlined: We don't believe in anything, nor do we even use belief. That's what separates our process from yours.

bold: Compromised? We can't hate something that doesn't exist. Therefore we have no hatred for god, and we simply dislike it when theists often push their beliefs down our throats to the point that we must defend. I agree there are some atheists who enjoy waving their flag, but it's not the case for most of us.

[Ace Otana]

What convinced you that god does not exist?

Actually it's more accuratly put as "why are you unconvinced that god exists?"
Reason: No evidence to support claim.
Nothing points to it's existance, therefor I lack belief in it.
Simple.

[Tiberius]

This school of Atheism (the I'm right, you're wrong school) is best captured in the Million monkeys paradox. You guys seem to beleive that a million monkeys on a million typewriters in a million years would eventually punch out a Sonnet. That randomness can create something of absurd complexity. I choose to disagree. But it gets tiring with the youngins rabbling around the room banging pot lids together pretending that I have a mental deficiency because I choose to disbelieve in the million monkey paradox. We hear you Tav, you think you're smarter/better than some of us, I get it. Move on.

The million monkeys "paradox" is provable through mathematics. Given that in the paradox, the chance of a letter being pressed is equal to the chance of any other letter being pressed, the chances of *any* equal length string of characters being produced is also equal. In other words, the chances of getting the 5 letter word "Hello" is just as likely as getting the nonsense word "Fyxqt". Extending this, the chances of getting any 14 line sonnet is the same as getting any variation of 14 lines of nonsense.

If you have enough time, you'll eventually get a string that matches a sonnet. It's basic probability.

Coincidently, the infinite monkeys paradox gets the entire works of human literature an infinite amount of times in infinite variations with only one keystroke per monkey. In other words, if you set up the infinite amount of monkeys, and get them to all make one keystroke on the keyboard, the infinitely long string you get by concatenating all the characters will contain every possible combination of string.

What you forget though is that the million monkeys paradox is not an accurate representation of evolutionary theory. Randomness produces complexity eventually, but evolutionary theory has natural laws acting as a selector, choosing the more advantageous random mutations. In doing so, you get complexity quicker than you would with pure randomness.

To give another example, if we wanted to get the word "Hello" from randomness only, the chances are 1/11881376 (assuming we only use an alphabet of 26 characters). Every time the process produces a 5 character word that doesn't match "Hello", we try again from scratch.

However, if we implemented a selector that detected the appearance of individual character matches to the character in "Hello" (for instance, if we get "Hteyw" then we have matched the first character), we could "hold" that character and simply randomize the others, rather than all 5 again.

I coded a program in Java that compares the two methods:

Code:

import java.util.Random;

public class Monkeys
{
    String target;
    Random rand;

    public static void main(String[] args)
    {
        Monkeys m = new Monkeys("HELLO");
        m.runRandom();
        m.runRandomWithSelection();
    }

    public Monkeys(String target)
    {
        this.target = target;
        rand = new Random();
    }

    public void runRandom()
    {
        System.out.println("Running random string generation for target \"" + target + "\".");
        String randomString = "";
        int counter = 0;
        
        while (!randomString.equals(target))
        {
            char[] newRandomString = new char[target.length()];
            for (int i = 0; i < target.length(); i++)
            {
                newRandomString[i] = (char) (rand.nextDouble() * 26 + 'A');
            }
            randomString = String.valueOf(newRandomString);
            counter++;
        }

        System.out.println("Target \"" + target + "\" found after " + counter + " attempts.");
    }

    public void runRandomWithSelection()
    {
        System.out.println("Running random string generation with selection for target \"" + target + "\".");
        char[] targetArray = target.toCharArray();
        char[] newRandomString = new char[targetArray.length];
        String randomString = "";
        int counter = 0;

        while (!randomString.equals(target))
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < targetArray.length; i++)
            {
                if (targetArray[i] != newRandomString[i])
                {
                    newRandomString[i] = (char) (rand.nextDouble() * 26 + 'A');
                }
            }
            randomString = String.valueOf(newRandomString);
            counter++;
        }

        System.out.println("Target \"" + target + "\" found after " + counter + " attempts.");
    }
}

The results speak for themselves:

Running random string generation for target "HELLO".
Target "HELLO" found after 9620798 attempts.
Running random string generation with selection for target "HELLO".
Target "HELLO" found after 43 attempts.

You can run the program with a different target as long as it is made of only the 26 uppercase letters. I ran it with the alphabet as a string ("ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ") and it found it in only 77 attempts. It's still running the pure random method

[Darwinian]

I'm pleased you indent your code properly, so many people don't and just produce a clumsy mess. Nothing to do with the topic but I thought I'd give you a bit of praise anyway

Although it would much more concise in Delphi