Why do you actually believe in God?

[Veritas_Vincit]

I'm morbidly curious about why Chad thinks atheism is ultimately absurdist and nihilistic.

Jor gave you a hint when she mentioned that reason has, in her opinion, limited application. In pure naturalism brains evolved to aid survival not evaluate truth propositions. In other words reason is unreliable.

It strikes me that this is only true if you require 'absolute certainty' which I don't believe exists outside of perhaps the logical absolutes.

But we can use reason, logic and evidence to demonstrate reasonable certainty. Like how on a bottle of disinfectant it will only ever claim to kill 99.99% of bacteria.

What is this logic of Aquinas that you find so irrefutable? I'm interested, it sounds like something I may not have come across before.

[robvalue]

Yes, reason can be unreliable, which is why we generate models and test them. That's science.

Of course, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that we're really in a mental institution and none of this is happening. But pragmatism is key. We learn, as best we can, about our environment. And we get good results. Whether or not any of it is actually "real" is only of philosophical importance. The models work within the environment.

If you wait for absolute certainty, you'll be waiting forever. People generally only retreat into this when they can't back up their own positions, and they try to drag everyone else down to their level.

[Angrboda]

Jor gave you a hint when she mentioned that reason has, in her opinion, limited application. In pure naturalism brains evolved to aid  survival not evaluate truth propositions. In other words reason is unreliable.

It strikes me that this is only true if you require 'absolute certainty' which I don't believe exists outside of perhaps the logical absolutes.

But we can use reason, logic and evidence to demonstrate reasonable certainty. Like how on a bottle of disinfectant it will only ever claim to kill 99.99% of bacteria.

What is this logic of Aquinas that you find so irrefutable? I'm interested, it sounds like something I may not have come across before.

The Quinque viæ (Latin, usually translated as "Five Ways" or "Five Proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

[Veritas_Vincit]

Oh wow - Aquinus came up with these? That's really interesting, I'm familiar with the arguments but I didn't know they all came from old Tom!

These have all been debunked, and then reworked and reworded, and still debunked.

So yeah, if this is what's convinced you then boy do you have another thing coming.

[robvalue]

Yeah. They suffer from special pleading, oversimplification of reality and incoherence mainly. Pretty much like all theistic arguments. It's what happens if you try to do science without doing any work.

[Neo-Scholastic]

These have all been debunked...

Yeah, I've heard that argument from authority many times, yet the people who say that have a hard time restating those objections without presenting straw men or relying on odd translations.

[Veritas_Vincit]

These have all been debunked...

Yeah, I've heard that argument from authority many times, yet the people who say that have a hard time restating those objections without presenting straw men or relying on odd translations.

I'm happy to go though each one and debunk it, but if I did, would you actually be prepared to acknowledge when an argument is refuted? I'd be happy to if you're up for an intellectually honest exchange. It's just that certain people on this forum don't play by the rules and it's like playing tennis without the net.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah, I've heard that argument from authority many times, yet the people who say that have a hard time restating those objections without presenting straw men or relying on odd translations.

I'm happy to go though each one and debunk it, but if I did, would you actually be prepared to acknowledge when an argument is refuted? I'd be happy to if you're up for an intellectually honest exchange.

I have already done one formal debate on AF. Then I had more personal time for formal debates. I no longer have that luxury. You are more than welcome to view my presentation of the 5W here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889-po...pid1007461 and my defense against the typical straw man arguments here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889-po...pid1009911

Since then I have seen many similar unserious objections – usually having something to do with “special pleading” which, not surprisingly, robvalue seems to find compelling. I addressed that charge in my reply “Against Objections to the First Way”.

I acknowledge that significant challenges to Aquinas have been proposed by important thinkers. For example, Kant’s objection to Anslem could be extended to 1W but no one here brings it up so I’ve never had to deal with it directly. Hume’s theory of causality could be used in an objection to 5W and I do have a response, but again, only a few people made hints in that direction so I’ve never had to confront that head-on either. So while I respect your eagerness to debate the 5W, I don’t know you very well and don’t want to have another “Metis” experience.

[robvalue]

I went through the whole thing before. I can copy it across, if anyone's interested. The Aquinas thing, that is.

[madog]

I know most people on this forum don't, for those who believe (or used to):

• How do you define 'God'? 
  
• Why do you (or did you) believe that this God exists? 
  

How do you define 'God'? ....  a perfect scam ... give your mortal life for an eternal perfection ... can only be fully exposed by the dead ...

Why do you believe that 'god' exists? .... to control and profit from the indoctrinated and gullible with extraordinary claims based on erroneous evidence.