A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it)

[Mystic]

What's the problem, then? If it's so easy to understand that most humans can do it, it ought to be simple enough for you to explain it to us poor misguided atheists.

If Theists do and can understand it, maybe,  some Atheists are being purposely obtuse, in case, there is nothing to be done.

[Cyberman]

What is your basis for saying that some atheists are purposely obtuse? Do you hear the arrogance in that opinion?

[LadyForCamus]

Bold mine.

This is simply a big, fat argument ad populum, MK.  Not evidence.

You don't get to just declare an assertion 'clear and obviously true' by fiat. That's not how this works.  'It's true cuz...duh, it's obvious,' is neither an argument nor evidence.

It's not as simple as that. To state what I state is wrong is one thing, but that no understands that perception but me,  then when reminded majority of humans past and present understand it,  it is a good question to ask why don't some Atheists understand it.

You see if you guys can go past the "your statements are too vague" or get me to define every single word used, we can get into an actual discussion over the truth of the statements. 

But this only MysticKnight understands these spiritual topics has to stop, because most of humans, and great philosophers like Plato, understood this.

I never said it is true because majority believe in it, I am talking about understanding it, which you many of you keep stating you don't understand.

What I'm saying is this: If you are going to use this thing, "ultimate goodness", in an argument to attempt to draw truth conclusions regarding the existence of god, you have to first demonstrate that it's an actual thing.

Every argument from you in the last two years has gone something like this:

If ultimate goodness exists, then god exists.
Ultimate goodness exists.
Therefore, god exists.

But, you have yet to demonstrate that this ultimate goodness does, in fact, exist. You can't even describe it coherently. And, every time we challenge you on your lack of evidential support for this assertion, your response is, 'of course it exists! How can you guys not see that?' That is a non-starter for any discussion regarding the existence of anything.

[Whateverist]

Collusion is not indicative of anything real.

Bro you just said:

for clear and obvious reasons nobody here but MK understands.

so that should be changed to:

for clear and obvious reasons everyone understands but some Atheists.


A good question would be then, why don't you understand what majority of humans do?

I guess I'm just not a good lemming.  But you all obvious have someplace important to go.  So I won't keep you.

[Mister Agenda]

A good question would be then, why don't you understand what majority of humans do?

It's as good a question as asking round-earthers why they don't understand what the majority of humans do back when the majority of humans thought the earth was flat.

Skeptics have standards of evidence based on rational principles, such as Bayesian reasoning. If those standards aren't met, we withhold belief. The majority of humans haven't thought much about what it SHOULD take to convince them whether something is true or not. Most of us WERE believers, what we understand that the majority of humans do not is why we should not believe everything our parents and communities have taught us is true.

[Whateverist]

But this only MysticKnight understands these spiritual topics has to stop, because most of humans, and great philosophers like Plato, understood this.

I never said it is true because majority believe in it, I am talking about understanding it, which you many of you keep stating you don't understand.

Point taken.  There are lots of people believing lots of god claims (though not necessarily the same ones) all over the world.  I was just trying to say that you were the only one involved in our conversation for whom it was clear and obvious.  That seemed relevant because you seemed to think your saying it should make it so with the rest of us who were there.  But it wasn't.

---

What's the problem, then? If it's so easy to understand that most humans can do it, it ought to be simple enough for you to explain it to us poor misguided atheists.

If Theists do and can understand it, maybe,  some Atheists are being purposely obtuse, in case, there is nothing to be done.

Or maybe we're just outside the cave and no longer worried about all those scary shadows.  Both sides get in trouble when they try to say what motivates the other side without enough appreciation of their perspective.

[pocaracas]

Bold mine.

This is simply a big, fat argument ad populum, MK.  Not evidence.

You don't get to just declare an assertion 'clear and obviously true' by fiat. That's not how this works.  'It's true cuz...duh, it's obvious,' is neither an argument nor evidence.

It's not as simple as that. To state what I state is wrong is one thing, but that no understands that perception but me,  then when reminded majority of humans past and present understand it,  it is a good question to ask why don't some Atheists understand it.

You see if you guys can go past the "your statements are too vague" or get me to define every single word used, we can get into an actual discussion over the truth of the statements. 

But this only MysticKnight understands these spiritual topics has to stop, because most of humans, and great philosophers like Plato, understood this.

I never said it is true because majority believe in it, I am talking about understanding it, which you many of you keep stating you don't understand.

Perhaps it is because most living humans and most of the humans of the past did not stand on the shoulders of giants, as we can now.

Perhaps we do understand why you think you (and many others) understand things the way you do.... but we see further... We see where that understanding likely came from.... we see that it is/was wrong... and we are just trying to ask you questions that will hopefully spark your own intellect to climb on to those shoulders and see beyond the narrow-mindedness of the past.... perhaps.

[Edwardo Piet]

What is your basis for saying that some atheists are purposely obtuse? Do you hear the arrogance in that opinion?

Nah. Some atheists definitely are purposefully obtuse. As some people of all kinds, both theistic ("NONSENSE! Are you theistic?") and atheistic ("Actually, I'm atheistic".) alike.

And yes, yes, I know what you actually meant, Steambum, and yes, yes, I am a pedant. A massive pedant. And proud of it.

[Cyberman]

I get your point. It's just that I'm loath to let him keep the tool that allows him to write off any objections to his claims as "you refuse to see the truth because you're being purposely obtuse". I'm trying to nail his trousers to the mast - then he can't climb down.

[Crossless2.0]

You see if you guys can go past the "your statements are too vague" or get me to define every single word used, we can get into an actual discussion over the truth of the statements. 

But this only MysticKnight understands these spiritual topics has to stop, because most of humans, and great philosophers like Plato, understood this.

Complains about people focusing too much on definitions and clarity of expression and then invokes Plato.

It's almost as if he hasn't read the Dialogues . . .