Theists - what convinced you?

[tavarish]

I have a few question for the theists on this forum.

What is your definition of God?

What convinced you that God exists?

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

[Disinter]

I can't speak for myself on this topic, but a friend of mine (who tried to convert me) told me that her mom adopting her is proof of god's existence....

[leo-rcc]

Uhuh, and children that don't get adopted is proof god doesn't exist?

[Minimalist]

her mom adopting her is proof of god's existence...

Is she that undesirable that being adopted required a miracle?

[tavarish]

her mom adopting her is proof of god's existence...

Is she that undesirable that being adopted required a miracle?

Fuck you, I nearly choked on my mint.

[Minimalist]

That's better than one of these.




Not as hard on the monitor.

[fr0d0]

a friend of mine told me that her mom adopting her is proof of god's existence....

---

What is your definition of God?

You're not fukkin interested so why ask!

---

my opinion:

God is an entity realised slowly throughout human history that has evolved through primitive conceptualisation to the finely honed ideas we enjoy now. The idea of a deity didn't come first it seems, but a grasp of this aspect of humanity.

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. I like the definitions in the summa, and I'd reiterate those. I also like the Via Negative arguments (defining God from what we can know he is not).
I like the first cause argument. I certainly accept that God 'is' - a timeless entity. He's all powerful, all knowing, three personalities in a single entity (I don't think non trinitarians are Christians), in everything (as he created it), and perfectly loving


Just so's you know I'm a protestant Christian who agrees with the theory of evolution and detests fundamentalists. I grew up default atheist and then considered atheist. My family aren't religious at all. I converted to Christianity in my late 20's and married a Christian as a believer. I was then an atheist for about 17 years before converting again after discussing religion with atheists on a forum.

Doctrines I agree with

Summa Theologica - Attributes of God

---

What convinced you that God exists?

His 'existence' was never a question of importance, belief in him was. Belief in him leads to faith that he 'exists' if you like, but how could anyone be logically 'convinced' of his existence? The question is intellectually absurd.

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

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?

[tavarish]

my opinion:

God is an entity realised slowly throughout human history that has evolved through primitive conceptualisation to the finely honed ideas we enjoy now. The idea of a deity didn't come first it seems, but a grasp of this aspect of humanity.

What finely honed ideas?

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?

I like the definitions in the summa, and I'd reiterate those.

They clash with the other arguments you "like".

I also like the Via Negative arguments (defining God from what we can know he is not).

Which just uses baseless assumptions and illogical wording.

Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).

Yes, God is both an apple and not an apple.

So much for logic, especially when trying to contemplate an entity's existence.

I like the first cause argument.

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

I certainly accept that God 'is' - a timeless entity. He's all powerful, all knowing, three personalities in a single entity (I don't think non trinitarians are Christians), in everything (as he created it), and perfectly loving

1. What reasonable evidence do you have to support this?
2. How do you know this evidence is correct?

Just so's you know I'm a protestant Christian who agrees with the theory of evolution and detests fundamentalists. I grew up default atheist and then considered atheist. My family aren't religious at all. I converted to Christianity in my late 20's and married a Christian as a believer. I was then an atheist for about 17 years before converting again after discussing religion with atheists on a forum.

Okie dokes.

His 'existence' was never a question of importance, belief in him was. Belief in him leads to faith that he 'exists' if you like, but how could anyone be logically 'convinced' of his existence? The question is intellectually absurd.

It is absurd to ask you what evidence you have that a deity you claim to believe in, actually exists. Yes, quite absurd.

...



Do you believe in other things that may or may not be real, but you just take it on faith that they are? If so, what?

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

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.

[fr0d0]

I don't want to get into this pointless discussion with you again, but I'll reply this once as you seem to want to ask again...

What finely honed ideas?

What do you think Einstein

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.

[quote='fr0d0' pid='63158' dateline='1270749029']
I like the definitions in the summa, and I'd reiterate those.

They clash with the other arguments you "like".

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

I also like the Via Negative arguments (defining God from what we can know he is not).

Which just uses baseless assumptions and illogical wording.

Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).

Yes, God is both an apple and not an apple.

So much for logic, especially when trying to contemplate an entity's existence.

There you go looking through the wrong end of the telescope again. And you confuse yourself I think.

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

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 certainly accept that God 'is' - a timeless entity. He's all powerful, all knowing, three personalities in a single entity (I don't think non trinitarians are Christians), in everything (as he created it), and perfectly loving

1. What reasonable evidence do you have to support this?
2. How do you know this evidence is correct?

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

His 'existence' was never a question of importance, belief in him was. Belief in him leads to faith that he 'exists' if you like, but how could anyone be logically 'convinced' of his existence? The question is intellectually absurd.

It is absurd to ask you what evidence you have that a deity you claim to believe in, actually exists. Yes, quite absurd.

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

...

Do you believe in other things that may or may not be real, but you just take it on faith that they are? If so, what?

No

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

It is.

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.

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.

[tavarish]

What do you think Einstein

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

...

No wordplay here, I asked you a straight question.

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?

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.

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?

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.