Is God a logical contradiction?

[Fake Messiah]

I'm open to Jinn.

Did you consider calling Ghost Hunters to clear it up?

[Simon Moon]

And once again, you are guilty of special pleading.

There are millions of people all over the middle east that claim to have: seen Jinn,  witnesses Jinn possess people,  physically attack people, shape shift, responsible for mental illness, and more. And you probably do not believe their claims, yet you believe almost the exact same category of claims from other people, just because you know them.

Once again, you have demonstrated how low your bar is for what you accept as convincing evidence. You are a credulous fool. You are guilty of just about every fallacy there is, in order to continue to believe your extremely unsupported beliefs.

---

I'm open to Jinn.

As am I. I am also open to the the existence of ghosts, gods, bigfoot, etc.

All I require to be convinced of any of the above types of claims, is demonstrable, falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support them.

Instead, all we ever see from theists, is, quotes and appeals from ancient texts, flawed and fallacious philosophical arguments, anecdotal evidence, and in this case, hearsay from your relatives that you believe just because you trust them.

As if people one trusts are unable to be mistaken about an experience...

By the way,  you're arrogant and rude.

I might have been in this case.

But I've been here for years, and all we've ever heard from you, is flawed argument after flawed argument, and bad evidence. I am not so sure it is being rude or arrogant to point out when someone is making flawed arguments. Especially when almost everyone here has pointed it out.

If I make a flawed argument and provide bad evidence for one of my beliefs, I love when someone points it out to me. One of my motivations in life is, to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and eliminate as many false beliefs as possible. I care if my beliefs are true or not.

[Lek]

But I've been here for years, and all we've ever heard from you, is flawed argument after flawed argument, and bad evidence. I am not so sure it is being rude or arrogant to point out when someone is making flawed arguments. Especially when almost everyone here has pointed it out.

If I make a flawed argument and provide bad evidence for one of my beliefs, I love when someone points it out to me. One of my motivations in life is, to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and eliminate as many false beliefs as possible. I care if my beliefs are true or not.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'll say this and leave it alone. I don't call the testimony of three different people who I know well a flawed argument or bad evidence - especially since each saw the same thing at different times. This is in addition to other people who I knew who testified to to similar or other supernatural experiences. If a ghost is not a natural phenomenon, then science doesn't necessarily have the means to determine their existence through scientific processes. Why limit yourself to only one avenue to determining the truth? I respect the fact that you don't believe it, but I don't limit myself to natural science in my search for truth.

[Simon Moon]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'll say this and leave it alone.  I don't call the testimony of three different people who I know well a flawed argument or bad evidence - especially since each saw the same thing at different times.  This is in addition to other people who I knew who testified to to similar or other supernatural experiences.  If a ghost is not a natural phenomenon, then science doesn't necessarily have the means to determine their existence through scientific processes.  Why limit yourself to only one avenue to determining the truth?  I respect the fact that you don't believe it, but I don't limit myself to natural science in my search for truth.

Fine.

But maybe you should read up on how easy it is for our senses to be fooled, in big ways. Or how easy it is for one person, to influence what another person reports they are experiencing.

Or how one's memories are influenced, after the fact, by someone else's report of the incident.

After all, over 1 million people sincerely believe they were at Woodstock, yet, there were about 400,000 people there.

How would you go about figuring out, if your other method for your search for the truth, is reliable?

Because, it sure seems to me, that your method, leads you and 2 billion other Christians to Christianity, 1.5 billion Muslims to Islam, and 1.1 billion Hindus to Hinduism. If the same method can lead the majority of people, to different (and mutually exclusive beliefs), it is not reliable, definitially.

[Lek]

Because, it sure seems to me, that your method, leads you and 2 billion other Christians to Christianity, 1.5 billion Muslims to Islam, and 1.1 billion Hindus to Hinduism. If the same method can lead the majority of people, to different (and mutually exclusive beliefs), it is not reliable, definitially.

My method has led those and billions more to a belief in God. It's the same instinct that has led the vast majority of people throughout history to that belief. It's my belief that all human beings have that instinct within us that has been put there by God. Even atheists are open to the existence of God, rather than pink elephants, dragons, etc. They just haven't proven it to themselves and are unable to accept his existence, but I think we're all searching.

[Simon Moon]

Because, it sure seems to me, that your method, leads you and 2 billion other Christians to Christianity, 1.5 billion Muslims to Islam, and 1.1 billion Hindus to Hinduism. If the same method can lead the majority of people, to different (and mutually exclusive beliefs), it is not reliable, definitially.

My method has led those and billions more to a belief in God.  It's the same instinct that has led the vast majority of people throughout history to that belief.  It's my belief that all human beings have that instinct within us that has been put there by God.  Even atheists are open to the existence of God, rather than pink elephants, dragons, etc.  They just haven't proven it to themselves and are unable to accept his existence, but I think we're all searching.

There is no instinct for to believe in gods. There is a human instinct (part of our survival mechanisms) to seek out patterns and agency (even if there is none).

This instinct, put there by our evolutionary history, is what leads us to find gods where there are none.

 It's the same instinct that has led the vast majority of people throughout history to that belief.  It's my belief that all human beings have that instinct within us that has been put there by God.

Circular argument.

"We have an instinct to believe in gods, because a god put that instinct in our brains. That's how I know gods exist, because I have the instinct to believe in gods. And since I have that instinct, a god must have put it there".

[Abaddon_ire]

But I've been here for years, and all we've ever heard from you, is flawed argument after flawed argument, and bad evidence. I am not so sure it is being rude or arrogant to point out when someone is making flawed arguments. Especially when almost everyone here has pointed it out.

If I make a flawed argument and provide bad evidence for one of my beliefs, I love when someone points it out to me. One of my motivations in life is, to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and eliminate as many false beliefs as possible. I care if my beliefs are true or not.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'll say this and leave it alone.  I don't call the testimony of three different people who I know well a flawed argument or bad evidence - especially since each saw the same thing at different times.

Except they didn't experience the same thing according to what you wrote here, you simply retro-fitted it all together.

 This is in addition to other people who I knew who testified to to similar or other supernatural experiences.

As if those unidentified witnesses matter. Could you stand up in court and claim that your anonymous are testimony? Of course not. And you fully realise that such nonsense would be laughed out of court. That is why you avoid it like the plague.

If a ghost is not a natural phenomenon,

First establish that a "ghost" is an actual phenomenon. Then you would have a start. But you cannot even get to step one.

then science doesn't necessarily have the means to determine their existence through scientific processes.

What other method do you propose? None at all, we should just take it on faith, right?

 Why limit yourself to only one avenue to determining the truth?

Got another that actually works? sure, you would be the first. Win your Nobel prize, why not

 I respect the fact that you don't believe it, but I don't limit myself to natural science in my search for truth.

You are not interested in truth, only reinforcement of preconceived belief in superstition.

Truth is the last thing you want. Truth interferes with your WOO, and you can't have that happening, can you? Anything which challenges the WOO must be wrong because it is impossible that you are wrong. Isn't that how it goes?

[onlinebiker]

Regarding eyewitness testimony -

Rule #1 - people lie.
Rule #2 - people who witness something retell the event wrong better than half the time.
Rule #3 - people remember stuff wrongly.
Rule#4 - in all other cases refer to rule #1.

[Lek]

Participants in this forum seem to be interested in why people believe in God. After years of study, debate, prayer and introspection, I came to the decision that I firmly believe in God, but it isn't because I am convinced by any scriptures. So I'm relating to you the reasons I feel that I believe. You obviously don't think they're good reasons, but they are the reasons.

[Abaddon_ire]

Participants in this forum seem to be interested in why people believe in God. After years of study, debate, prayer and introspection, I came to the decision that I firmly believe in God, but it isn't because I am convinced by any scriptures.  So I'm relating to you the reasons I feel that I believe.  You obviously don't think they're good reasons, but they are the reasons.

So you just decided to believe in god for bugger all reason. This seems reasonable to you?