Jachie said:
I have no problem with you asking questions, so I don't appreciate that kind of generalization. However, you are going to have to accept the fact that there are some things I can't answer.
You have your reasons for believing things, there's a reason why you think complexity of life might mean god exists, many others I know have been able to voice this, maybe you can't but I'm sure there is a reason somewhere in your brain.
Your insistence that I fill in the holes for you, for example. I can only give you all that I've got, and you are going to have to meet me halfway. I can’t make something make sense to you. I can only offer my reasoning, and you can make from that what you will.
Your reasoning is missing a huge chunk in it though. There is certainly a reason why you believe that complexity would mean a god is more likely, perhaps you just can't convey it?
I have stated, time and time and time again, my reasoning for believing that God exists. You have shown my reasoning doesn’t satisfy you, but that’s on your shoulders, not mine.
And I have shown to you, using the analogy of if I said "I believe god doesn't exist because there's pain in the world" that such answers beg the question.
I have covered it all; I can’t offer you any more explanation because “more” doesn’t exist.
I know that more explanation exists because bshoc himself in this thread has already voiced one version of the reasoning you could use to fill that gap.
You turn the situation around so it seems like I’m refusing to discuss the matter, and that’s not the case.
Seems like it to me.
Although, I will take this opportunity to bring up this point: Waste of time? Tell me, what makes it a waste of time? Because you have failed to convince me, as of yet, that my beliefs are ludicrous?
No, I never try to do that, believe I could, or even want to convince you of anything. I'd be happy to just get you thinking, at the moment you seem to be stuck in a rut on this question where you feel "complexity" is a good enough answer on its own... I've tried to show you that it's not but you seem unwilling to delve deeper. I seriously doubt you CANNOT think beyond what you've stated.
I purposely ignored this question, because I find it not only irrelevant, but also somewhat offensive.
I mean no offense, sometimes I just think the way I look at faith (as often logically ludacris) can come accross as offensive and I don't think it was irrelevant, as I'll explain.
No.
Am I stating in black-and-white, “God is here amongst us, PERIOD.”?
No, but someone imagining they're bonaparte doesn't need to be saying in black and white "I AM NAPOLEON BONAPARTE", they might just feel that chances are they're napoleon.
You are completely and deliberately misconstruing my argument. What I am saying, and the ludicrous example you have picked, are like chalk and cheese: there is absolutely no comparison.
You haven't explained WHY there's no comparison to be drawn, just stated it. Here's the problem:
1) You stated you have no reasons/evidence for your belief.
2) Insane people have no reasons/evidence for their belief.
C: Your belief is on par with the insane, in terms of evidence.
I don't think it is, I think you either don't know or are concealing your reasons for belief.
I would press you, just like you have pressed me. The difference is, I have given you my connection.
To say the complexity of the universe is the reason you believe in God is as good as me saying the colour of my wallpaper is the reason I don't believe, without any further justification for WHY it is that the complexity of the universe makes you think God is more possible.
I don’t believe anything I can tell you will satisfy you, and I believe that because I HAVE said all I can say and that still hasn’t satisfied you.
Ok, if you really can't say any more that's fine.
I didn’t get angry. That was your interpretation of a post, not the actual intention. The only reason I can claim you’d never find my beliefs logical, is that I have told you them time and time again and you still question me with, “But why?” Questioning is good, I like discussion. But generally, questioning occurs when you find something illogical.
I don't find what you've said so far to really be illogical, just that it needs more filling to actually make any meaningful sense.
The fact I can give you my reasoning for believing in God time and time again, and you still want more explanation, means you’re not satisfied with said reasoning. And why would you be not satisfied with something you find logical?
I'll give an example.
A mechanic says the car won't start because the spark plug is broken. That is a fairly logical statement, however to find out whether it's really meaningful, it might be necessary to ask why it is that the spark plug being broken would mean the car won't start.
Indeed. That’s where the whole, “God-can-never-be-proved; hence-the-whole-faith-concept” comes into play.
Well that's my argument against God, if you believe in God then logically you should also believe in all sorts of supernatural concepts i.e. magic dwarves etc.
Dr. Gary miller explained this question -
it went something like this: if someone comes to you and says that he is henry VI, and he is king of england,= the pychiatrist will go about probing his state until he is convinced that he isnt henry.
How does that prove that his belief, when he had it, was any less sound then your own? All it shows is that some people with particular beliefs can be shown/made to believe they are wrong - The same can happen with religious belief.
not really, gremlins and dwarves have never come out of fantasy world trying to connect with us in some way- to communicate with us.
I could show connections that they have just as well as you could show connections that god has.
but with God, its different- like when Jesus would have come to the jews telling them the God had sent him- the jews would be like- "your crazy, if you want us to believe you, then prove it" and according to christian and islamic teachings, we believe that he raised the dead and healed the lepers and did some other incredible stuff that to the audience at the time of his existence- would serve as undeniable proof that God exists at least prima facie- the way to disprove that would be to show that a man at the time could do what jesus did- which they couldnt (obviously as it was impposible)
We don't know what happened at that time thus rendering your argument entirely void.
so to say that the "realm of possibility where god may exist is the same realm of possibility where we might really be plugged into the matrix, magical leper gnomes may exist and the sandman puts us to sleep at night" does not hold as nobody to my knowledge has ever came out and made such propositions.
How does it not hold because you don't know of anyone making that proposition? You've shown in no way that it doesn't hold and I get the feeling that some theologians (while they would be offended by the way I worded the question) would essentially agree with the proposition.
In my eyes, I have made a whole argument. I'm sorry I can't offer you more words, or more of an explanation, but my take of God is very simple in comparison to others, and I can't expand on it much more than I already have. I can understand why it wouldn't be a satisfying argument to some, don't get me wrong. But that's really all there is to it.
