No reason justifies disbelief.

[The Valkyrie]

Do mind scientific evidence isn't always realiable. Science is still evolving and had to crawl back on what they thought to be evidence more than often so why pin down on it so much?

Because it's still more reliable than a two thousand year old book of fairy tales that is contradictory and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and neede a committee to decide which parts were true and which parts weren't.

[Belacqua]

You do it for a "look at me" moment. 

There are a number of good reasons to cite the source of an idea. 

If you want to believe that I do it for a bad reason, that's your imagining, and I can't stop you.

---

I'm still working on them. Is there a hurry? "I don't know yet, and maybe never will," seems to me like a reasonable position. 

One learns interesting things along the way.

Sure, let us know perhaps when you make progress, which at least convinces yourself

I learn wonderful things all the time. It's a great pleasure.

---

So then you admit these arguments are not arguments for the judeochristian tri-omni god?  

I'm not sure why you're asking this. Different arguments point to different things. Of course Aristotle didn't argue for the Trinity. Why would he? Each argument points toward the thing it is pointing toward and not something else. Is this in question? 
The fact that we have to establish something like this is very strange to me.

[LadyForCamus]

So then you admit these arguments are not arguments for the judeochristian tri-omni god?  

I'm not sure why you're asking this.

Well, if you’d bothered to read, quote, and respond to the rest of that paragraph, it would be obvious why I asked it. But, you chose to quote-mine me instead. Do you realize how blatantly dishonest that seems? I asked you in follow-up:

So...what good are they then?  What do they tell us about the origins of the universe? What meaningful thing do they tell us about any god?

Care to answer any of these questions honestly, or are you just going quote-mine me for the entire discussion?  Also, I’ve asked you twice (and so has Possibletarian):

Why aren’t you persuaded by the logical arguments for the existence of god?

and for the third time—

Why should we take these arguments seriously if their premises rely on the empirical observations you said we couldn’t use to investigate god?

and...I’ve lost count—

What is this reliable, alternative method to science, of investigating god-claims, and how you know it’s reliable?


I don’t know what you thought coming here, but you have work to do.

[Belacqua]

Well, if you’d bothered to read, quote, and respond to the rest of that paragraph, it would be obvious why I asked it. 

It isn't obvious. Where did I ever say that all arguments for God are arguments for the Christian Trinity-type God? Why should I have to "admit" that an argument for one thing is not an argument for another? 

So...what good are they then?  What do they tell us about the origins of the universe? What meaningful thing do they tell us about any god?

I'm not sure yet. They pose a lot of interesting questions. They point out, among other things, how many questions there are that science can't answer, and maybe can't be answered at all. 

Why aren’t you persuaded by the logical arguments for the existence of god?

I'm not sure I have them right. People disagree. The arguments are complicated and I see that few people understand them properly. 

What's the hurry? 

Why should we take these arguments seriously if their premises rely on the empirical observations you said we couldn’t use to investigate god?

The premises may be reliable but not in themselves point to a God. The extrapolations from those premises may or may not point to a God, depending on if you find the argument persuasive or not. 

What is this reliable, alternative method to science, of investigating god-claims, and how you know it’s reliable?

Traditionally, philosophers use logic based on premises that we are likely to agree on. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not. You seem to be sure it's not a reliable.

[brewer]

You do it for a "look at me" moment. 

There are a number of good reasons to cite the source of an idea. 

If you want to believe that I do it for a bad reason, that's your imagining, and I can't stop you.

You cite the source without providing the idea. 

Not imaginings, assessment of behavior.

[Belacqua]

You cite the source without providing the idea. 

Sometimes naming the source is shorthand. So if I say "Aristotle's God" it's a short way to talk about that particular notion of a Prime Mover.

If the reference isn't obvious to somebody that's fine -- nobody has time to study everything. I'll explain if asked, or that person can use Google. Surely we aren't expected to spell out every concept in every post.

Not imaginings, assessment of behavior.

Based in mind-reading my motivations.

[EgoDeath]

I'll say it again, since 23 pages later, it seems to be worth saying again.

If you're going to claim "no reason justifies disbelief," I'd like you to demonstrate how and why that is true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Aristoltles god wasn't the prime mover...though, the prime mover, in aristotles formation, was some higher order thing than any god.  The same was true of platos formation.  Gods were lesser beings by comparison.

[brewer]

You cite the source without providing the idea. 

Sometimes naming the source is shorthand. So if I say "Aristotle's God" it's a short way to talk about that particular notion of a Prime Mover.

If the reference isn't obvious to somebody that's fine -- nobody has time to study everything. I'll explain if asked, or that person can use Google. Surely we aren't expected to spell out every concept in every post.

Not imaginings, assessment of behavior.

Based in mind-reading my motivations.

Well, I'm not going to ask. That's akin to gas on a fire.

Based on reading your posts.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm not sure yet. They pose a lot of interesting questions. They point out, among other things, how many questions there are that science can't answer, and maybe can't be answered at all.

How have you determined which questions science can’t answer?  You have a crystal ball on hand?

Why aren’t you persuaded by the logical arguments for the existence of god?

I'm not sure I have them right. People disagree. The arguments are complicated and I see that few people understand them properly. 

What's the hurry?

Well, considering the hubris with which you condemn atheists for not being persuaded by them, I guess I assumed you had more of a handle, lol.  So, if you aren’t sure you have them right, then you have no right to accuse atheists of being closed-minded when we say we aren’t convinced by them. Right?

Why should we take these arguments seriously if their premises rely on the empirical observations you said we couldn’t use to investigate god?

The premises may be reliable but not in themselves point to a God. The extrapolations from those premises may or may not point to a God, depending on if you find the argument persuasive or not.

No. That’s not what I asked. You asserted that empirical data could not be used to investigate god claims.  Yet, most logical arguments for god rely on premises involving empirical observations about the universe. So...? Lol

What is this reliable, alternative method to science, of investigating god-claims, and how you know it’s reliable?

Traditionally, philosophers use logic based on premises that we are likely to agree on. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not. You seem to be sure it's not a reliable.

See above. Please and thank you.  Why are you scared of stating your belief?  You realize it’s obvious to everyone, right?