Why do you believe in God?

Author: TheAtheist

Posts

Total: 393
#61
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheAtheist
Nonsense. Your claim that atheists must believe in God because they argue against his existence is a complete non-sequitur. Just because we gave a name and description to something does not mean that that something exists.
That's exactly its meaning. Because by giving God description, you're indicating your perception of God. You're indicating that you can perceive God in some form. Here's another axiom: p - one cannot perceive that which does not exist, q - therefore, everything one perceives must exist. This logic is irrefutable and serves as the death knell of atheist reasoning. In other words, if God did not exist then you would not know that God did not exist because you're incapable of perceiving God's nonexistence. And if you claim to be able to perceive the nonexistent, then the nonexistent must be existent, contradicting and refuting your own argument.


Humans gave a name and description to Sauron from Lord of The Rings, but I'm sure we both are pretty certain that Sauron does not exist.
Sauron does exist. If I were to ask you: why do you believe Sauron does not exist? I bet it will be confined to a materialist standard, informing my point that you and many other "Gnostic" atheists are neither rationalists, nor logicians. You're dogmatic proponents of a philosophy which gives the description "reality" to material composition, the irony of which is that most if not all concepts of the physical sciences are rooted in abstract mathematics, as we will see here:

Why do you want me to prove something that is wrong? Numbers do not exist. They are immaterial.
Do you see my point? But hold on to this thought.

Numbers are a human concept created by humans and than concept exists solely inside our brains.
No they do not. According to your rationale, "Numbers do no exist." So, they wouldn't even exist "inside our brains." Which is it? Do they exist, or do they not? Are you perhaps suggesting that they exist in some other form, thereby acknowledging other forms of existence?

There can be a number of something material, for example five soccer balls, but the number five itself does not exist.
No. The number does not exist therefore, there can be nothing--only the matter you name soccer balls. If you're going to argue on that premise, then make sure your arguments are consistent with it.

but the number five itself does not exist.
Therefore, the description would not exist. There would be no such thing as "five soccer balls." So that would beg the question, why did you initiate a  belief in five soccer balls existing?

In fact, if there was proof that numbers actually existed, that would be evidence for the existence of God and not against his existence.
Depends on the standard. Materialists standards would likely not inform God's existence even with a proof of numbers.

Oh, and by the way, by claiming that numbers don't exist, you're asserting that all scientific laws don't exist. Chiefly, mathematical proof distinguishes scientific laws from all other concepts in Science. So here's a syllogism:

MP: Numbers don't exist.
Mp: Mathematics does not exist
C: Therefore, Scientific Laws don't exist.

If you can countermand this logic, I'll welcome you to it.

An axiom must always be true and can be applied to anyone. I am considered anyone, so your axiom can certainly be used to determine my beliefs.
Let's test your axiom on me:

p: I can believe God exists.
q: Therefore, I do believe God exists. 

Hmmm... I don't believe that God exists.
Your reasoning hasn't sufficiently demonstrated that you don't believe God exists. You've entertained the notion of immaterial existence to the detriment of your argument, undermining the premise of your contention against God's existence. Not to mention, your reasoning as I've demonstrated above is inconsistent. There's nothing wrong with my use of logic, but everything is wrong with yours.

Get rekt.
This is no youtube argument, friend.
#62
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
@BrotherDThomas
@TheAtheist


p: I can believe Nanabozho (the great rabbit) exists.
q: Therefore, I do believe Nanabozho (the great rabbit) exists. 

This seems indistinguishable from pure imagination.
Seem is not an argument; seem is your impression.

Can you please provide your preferred definition of "exists"?

to be.

@TheAtheist:

Yes, how hard is this to understand? Numbers are pretend-make-believe! The concept of numbers has been created by humans and they do not exist in our world. Why are you still using this bullshit argument?
You do realize that I didn't forward this argument to you? So there's no "still" as it concerns your discussion with me. Pay more attention to your own comments and the responses to them, and you'll find yourself being less redundant. And, it's not a bullshit argument. Your grasp of logic, as I've stated before is bastardized, presumably by your materialist dogma. Your logic is inconsistent as I've shown. You do believe numbers exist("in our brains.") So until you reconcile that faulty premise with your materialist standards, I'll await a more cogent response.


@BrotherDThomas:

Since your comical Confucianism revolves around the pursuit of the unity of the individual self AND the God of Heaven, I will ask you which one of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages God does your belief believe in?  This is a very simple question, even though “The Atheist” can’t address it thus far regarding my post #34 to him.

Logically and rationally, which God does matter, get it?

All of them.
#63
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Guess again. [LINK]

Answer my question: are numbers "pretend-make-believe"?
#64
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@janesix



.
janesix,

YOUR AMBIGUOUS QUOTE:  "I am a theist of no particular faith or religion. I believe in a personal god, due to religious and spiritual experiences. I used to be an atheist materialist until I had my spiritual experiences."

Huh?  You believe in a “personal god” that gave you spiritual experiences? Then how do you know which alleged God gave you these alleged spiritual experiences, and how do you differentiate these experiences from just being natural to human beings and not religious at all? Case in point, Atheists can have an equal "experience" in how unbelievable a sunset is, without it being spiritual in nature with a god concept behind it.

You seem to be in a subjective smorgasbord of picking and choosing your god concept without any foundation whatsoever other than alleged "spiritual experiences" which do not need a God concept whatsoever.  


.

#65
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
MP: Numbers don't exist.
Mp: Mathematics does not exist
C: Therefore, Scientific Laws don't exist.
Numbers, mathematics, and scientific laws are purely abstract and imaginary.

HowEVer, they have demonstrable EFFICACY.

They are logically coherent, rigorously defined and Quantifiable.

This is in distinct contrast to your Qualitative experience of believing in god(s).

You are once again trying to muddy-the-waters by conflating Quanta and Qualia.
#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
p: I can believe Nanabozho (the great rabbit) exists.
q: Therefore, I do believe Nanabozho (the great rabbit) exists. 

This seems indistinguishable from pure imagination.
Seem is not an argument; seem is your impression.
Your naked assertions are not arguments either.

Perhaps we might engage in a civil conversation?
#67
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Then how do you know which alleged God gave you these alleged spiritual experiences, and how do you differentiate these experiences from just being natural to human beings and not religious at all?
Obviously, I DON"T know "which God". I have never claimed to know anything about the nature of God, or even if God is one of the thousands of named Gods over the millennia. I also don't claim to know if there is a single God, or more than one. I don't have enough information.

Religious / spiritual experiences ARE natural to human beings. That's why we are able to have them. 


#68
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Numbers, mathematics, and scientific laws are purely abstract and imaginary.
So they're "pretend-make-believe"?

HowEVer, they have demonstrable EFFICACY.
Efficacious toward what?

They are logically coherent, rigorously defined and Quantifiable.
All of which can be reduced to "purely abstract and imaginary," rigor notwithstanding, yes? Or in other words, they're still just "pretend-make-believe"?

This is in distinct contrast to your Qualitative experience of believing in god(s).
The contrast is rooted in your subjective values, and that's fine for you. It makes it neither consistent nor less fallacious.



#69
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Your naked assertions are not arguments either.
I haven't made any naked assertions. But dwelling on this would only perpetuate regress. If you want to do that, you can do that on your own.

Perhaps we might engage in a civil conversation?
Have I been uncivil? Where have I exhibited poor conduct, poor manners, or impoliteness? "Seem" is not an argument. I'm not saying that to be impolite; I'm saying that to provide you information. Whenever I see the word, "seem" in an argument, I almost always make to sure to point out that it has no place in an argument. That's not "uncivil"; that's intellectual honesty, albeit blunt.
#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
HowEVer, they have demonstrable EFFICACY.
Efficacious toward what?
Have you ever heard of a computer?

Do you understand that they operate using mathematical principles?
#71
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
This is in distinct contrast to your Qualitative experience of believing in god(s).
The contrast is rooted in your subjective values, and that's fine for you. It makes it neither consistent nor less fallacious. 
The efficacy of mathematics and the scientific method is demonstrable.

The efficacy of mathematics and the scientific method is not a matter of opinion.

You can verify it for yourself.  You don't need any faith.
#72
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@janesix


Miss Janesix,

You state with specificity that you don’t have enough information about which alleged God is giving you these alleged “spiritual experiences,” but yet you are precluding that a God concept is giving said experiences to you.  “Moving experiences” in this context are given to all human beings without the term “spiritual” and a God concept behind it. Therefore, how do you determine whether it is a godly spiritual experience, or just a natural moving experience?


.

#73
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you ever heard of a computer?

Do you understand that they operate using mathematical principles?
How can that be? Mathematics is make-believe. How can you be so certain that these principles were used if they're imaginary? Aren't you just looking at a proverbial inkblot of matter and "naming" it a "computer" and saying that you "used mathematical principles"? What use does your imagination have in anything other than perpetuating the unjustifiable folly of your imagination?

(And in case it's not obvious, I'm being purposefully facetious here. There's a point you're implicitly making here, but if you outright acknowledge it, you'll undermine your entire argument. Let's see how honest your intellectual honesty is.)

The efficacy of mathematics and the scientific method is demonstrable.
Imaginary and purely abstract concepts can demonstrate nothing--nothing physical or material at least. They don't exist, right? How does the nonexistent interact with and influence the existent and vice versa? Is there a nexus? Who or what is this nexus? And what does that mean for the nexus? Does it exist or does it not exist? Or is it entirely irrelevant?

(There's a method to this madness, and logical consistency makes that clear. You need only employ it to understand.)
#74
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Athias


Athias,

Your response to my question of Logically and rationally, which God does matter was: "all Gods."

As if your faith isn't muddled enough, then when you proffer that ALL GODS are the cause of your beliefs, then said Gods of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Age ALL CONTRADICT each other in their said doctrines! Therefore, your foundation of your belief is comical at best because of the logical ramifications of this fact!  

Your faith deduces to "Who's on first, and what's on second, and I don't know is pitching, which is as laughable as this comedy skit.


.


#75
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Because I feel the presence of God.
#76
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Athias,

Your response to my question of Logically and rationally, which God does matter was: "all Gods."

As if your faith isn't muddled enough, then when you proffer that ALL GODS are the cause of your beliefs, then said Gods of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Age ALL CONTRADICT each other in their said doctrines! Therefore, your foundation of your belief is comical at best because of the logical ramifications of this fact!  
Strawman argument. I never once stated that any God was the cause of my beliefs. In fact, I made a statement to the contrary:

p: I can believe God exists.
q: Therefore, I do believe God exists.
Try again.


#77
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheAtheist
Guys, guys, what are you doing here? I made this topic for theists to explain to us why they believe in God. This isn't about whether theism is valid or whether there is evidence that God exists. Only post what is relevant to the topic: "why do you believe in God?"

It's hard for me to find someone in real life with whom I can talk about religion,

"Lets give it a try, let me know what you would like to discuss."
#78
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
You are once again trying to muddy-the-waters by conflating Quanta and Qualia.
..."The integrated information theory (IIT) [1] attempts to provide a principled answer to these questions. By starting from phenomenology and making a critical use of thought experiments, the IIT claims that:

i) the quantity of consciousness is the amount of integrated information generated by a complex of elements;

ii) the quality of consciousness is specified by the set of informational relationships generated among the elements of a complex."..
~~~~~~~~~~
1} Quantified { mathematical } does not neccessitate and  association with the 'quantization' of occupied space as a quantum particle or set of quantum events { bits } that are integral as one particle { as a quantum bit }.

2} Quality { sensorial } is the synergetic, integral  resultant of a complex of bits interrelating thereby creating a human  discernnent of a line-of-relationship to their environment i.e. the environmental circumstances and their sensorial feelings. 



#79
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Athias



.
Athias,

Your blatant ignorance regarding your comical faith in your post #75 has no bounds!  With specificity, there is no Strawman involved just because of your lack of knowledge about your own faith subsequent to stepping in the proverbial poo!  Maybe you should read about it FIRST before you accept its embarrassing doctrine? Yes?  LOL

Again, you are who you pretend to be, and without knowledge of your pagan faith, priceless embarrassment at your expense!

NEXT?


.


#80
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@janesix



.
Janesix,

YOUR QUOTE: "Because I feel the presence of God."

Again, how do you determine the presence of a God concept, over the natural feelings in a secular way of an overwhelming experience that everyone can feel, religious or not?  Then to be logically true to form, without speculation, subsequent to it known that it is truly a God concept that is giving you these spiritual experiences, one has to determine which God is causing them. Obviously one would want to know the name of this God to be able to give it credit, and possibly worship it in return.

Rationally, there are no free rides to your quote above, otherwise, it is useless chaff that is to be laughed at, and at your expense.


.





#81
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Athias
Which proves conclusively that god exists only in your mind.
#82
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Athias
No that's your god that's make believe.
#83
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
"Lets give it a try, let me know what you would like to discuss."
Let's discuss "god planets".

Topic's author
#84
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Athias
If something exists, it has an objective reality of being. Numbers do not have an objective reality of being. Sauron does not have an objective reality of being. Scientific laws do not have an objective reality of being. These are all concepts created by human beings. The concept of numbers exists inside our minds, the concept of Sauron exists inside our minds, and the concept of scientific laws exists inside our mind. There is no actual Sauron living inside the mind of a LOTR fan, it's just the concept of him. Same thing with God: the concept of God exists. But that does not mean God actually exists in the real world. 

#85
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheAtheist
If something exists, it has an objective reality of being. Numbers do not have an objective reality of being. Sauron does not have an objective reality of being. Scientific laws do not have an objective reality of being. These are all concepts created by human beings. The concept of numbers exists inside our minds, the concept of Sauron exists inside our minds, and the concept of scientific laws exists inside our mind. There is no actual Sauron living inside the mind of a LOTR fan, it's just the concept of him. Same thing with God: the concept of God exists. But that does not mean God actually exists in the real world. 


Your statements are only furthering your contradictions. You just said that, "if something [were to] exist, it [would have] an objective real being." According to your rationale, concepts don't exist. In other words, concepts "exist" in nothing and/or nowhere. By claiming that concepts exist "inside our minds," you are asserting one of two things: (1) either the content of our minds have objective real being, or (2) your description of existence doesn't suffice, presuming of course that "objective reality of being" is subject to your materialist standard.

The irony is, your understanding of that which is "real" (material) is almost, if not entirely based on that which you claim "isn't real" (immaterial.) Explain to me, while incorporating logical consistency, how that is.
#86
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
The irony is, your understanding of that which is "real" (material) is almost, if not entirely based on that which you claim "isn't real" (immaterial.) Explain to me, while incorporating logical consistency, how that is.
'X' and the 'concept of X' are distinct.  It is obvious that in many, many cases the concept of X exists but X does not exist - Sherlock Holmes is an example.

The concept-of-God exists in all our brains/minds, but that is not much help for determining if God per se exists.
Topic's author
#87
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Athias
Yes, concepts do not exist in the real world. They only exist inside our minds. Existing in reality and existing inside our mind are two different things. Plus, a concept is different from the actual thing. Just because the concept of God exists inside my mind does not mean that God exists in the real world. You're acting like you've disproved all my arguments wrong but you're just asking me silly questions.
#88
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@keithprosser
'X' and the 'concept of X' are distinct.  It is obvious that in many, many cases the concept of X exists but X does not exist
You think this makes sense, but it does not. The concept x does not hold without x. You mean to say that there's a distinction between a material x and an immaterial x, and that an immaterial x can exist even if a material x doesn't. This isn't necessarily true, but it provides a more substantial line of reasoning to your original statement.

Sherlock Holmes is an example.
No, he isn't. If I were to ask you, "what does Sherlock Holmes look like?" you'd be able to tell me.

The concept-of-God exists in all our brains/minds, but that is not much help for determining if God per se exists.
Once again, this makes no sense. If God does not exist, then how does a nonexistent conception of a nonexistent entity exist? Your arguments contradict each other because, much like TheAtheist's argument, you've incorporated two distinct descriptions of existence in the very same argument. Choose one and provide an argument consistent with that description. Either the content of one's mind does not exist, making everything one thinks nonexistent, including the concept of understanding anything (e.g. materialism,) or the content of one's mind does exist, making everything one thinks exists, including Sauron, numbers, scientific law, and Sherlock Holmes. Thus, the distinction between material and immaterial existence is nothing more than an epistemological insignificance proposed by atheists.

Once again, one cannot perceive that which does not exist, therefore everything one perceives must exist. This is axiomatic (though feel free to attempt a refutation.) It's roughly in the same vein as Rene Descartes' conception of "Je pense donc Je suis" (I think; therefore, I am.) I'll state this once more: many atheists, especially many of those whom I've encountered--including this forum--are neither rationalists, nor logicians. Many of them are materialist ideologues whose grasp of logic is tenuous at best, and at the very least, a bastardized logic. Rely on logical consistency rather than convoluted semantic gymnastics, and understanding God's existence should become a simpler task.


Topic's author
#89
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Athias
"The content of one's mind does not exist, making everything one thinks nonexistent."

Yes. Bingo. You got it. The content of someone's mind does not exist in the real world. Just because you can perceive God does not mean that God is real. You finally understand my argument, you did it Athias!
#90
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheAtheist
Yes, concepts do not exist in the real world.
Okay, hold on to this thought.

They only exist inside our minds.
Once again, your arguments contradict:

If something exists, it has an objective reality of being.
Therefore, this statement here you made:

They only exist inside our minds
is only true if the content of our minds has objective real being, making this statement:

Existing in reality and existing inside our mind are two different things
completely false.

It's not "silly." The logic of your argument is tenuous; The logic of my argument is unyielding; thus my arguments can deconstruct your statements to a tee and elucidate the rationales of which you yourself are unwitting.


Plus, a concept is different from the actual thing.
Keep your focus on the discussion we're having. We are not discussing "things," whatever its meaning. We're discussing existence.

Just because the concept of God exists inside my mind does not mean that God exists in the real world.
According to you, in order for something to exist, it must be of the real world. So which is it? Be careful not to backpedal.

You're acting like you've disproved all my arguments wrong but you're just asking me silly questions.
You have no evidence of how I'm "acting like." And as I've told Brutal, impressions have no place in a debate. Furthermore, I did not have to falsify your arguments; your contradictions undermined your argument.