Prove it

[Eaquae Legit]

Can you prove that your dog exists? That is, assuming that you have a dog?

I just saw this.

If you come to my house, my dog will get very excited and pee on you. If you decide not to believe in her after that, that's fine, but you still have to clean your own danged shoe. I won't do it for you.

*laughter* (not at Steve, but at my own stupid, incontinent mutt)

[hive_king]

My mistake then. When my spanish teacher taught about it, she didn't tell us anythinga bout that. I retract my statement.

[Eaquae Legit]

Hey Satya, would you be interested in exchanging reading lists? I know you've got a number of books that have informed your own moral and religious beliefs, and most I probably haven't read. I'll likely read them eventually, but if you're willing to match me book for book, I'll make that a promise (would be slow progress, though, till school gets out).

Just a thought, no obligation. Anyone else is welcome to contribute, if they want.

*****

Alright. I'm procrastinating on my collation assignment (BAD EL!), so I'll start on why I'm a Christian. It'll probably branch off in places into why I'm a Catholic, specifically, because at times the two are hard to separate. This might go on for a couple of posts, I'm not sure. Like I said in my previous post, these are my reasons why I believe what I do. They're personal, and I don't expect them to be anyone else's reasons. I don't ask anyone to agree with me, but I ask that any doubts or questions be expressed in a thoughtful, respectful manner.

We'll start with the easy stuff. I was raised as a Catholic, like I said in my post about "How It Began." Unlike many people my age, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for my mother. I could have been raised in a fearful, condemning "hellfire and brimstone" kind of pre-Vatican II household, but I wasn't. She still is to me one of the best models I have for a thoughtful, informed, and generous faith. I've studied an awful lot, and there are still many times when I can ask my mother for the answer to a "Why?" question about Catholicism, and find it. She really knows her stuff, and she's happy to share when people ask, but I've never seen her be an evangelist. What does my mother have to do with anything? I grew up with a balanced, nuanced perception of religion that welcomed the presence of science and reason (she has a chem degree, even!). It was neither the bubbly, saccarrhine, empty religion of "Jesus loves you!" nor the depressing, fearful religion of "Sin and you go to HELL!" I believe that being in the middle allowed for doors in my mind where I could question and inquire without the mental hindrances of fear (of hell or of what might destroy The Happy). Also, my questions were never dismissed out-of-mind, as what might lead one to suspect the answers were so many mirages.

I read a lot as a kid. All sorts of books. I know that by my second year of high school, at least, I was into some apologetics and theology. There are some books which I read then which I cringe at, now. (A rip-off of The Screwtape Letters comes to mind, particularly.) I don't recall what year I first read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which I mentioned before. The first section starts with nothing more than "What can we observe about people?" and builds an argument for the existence of Deity. The second sections goes from there and builds an argument for the Christian Deity. (The succeeding sections discuss Christian theology.) People can and do read that book and come away from it disagreeing with Lewis. I was one of the ones to whom it rang startlingly true. To this day I maintain that it is one of the best theistic arguments ever written. I'd loved Lewis before, from his Narnian Chronicles, but when I discovered his apologetics, I went and read through a good number of his books. (Thinking about that was what occasioned the first bit of this post. I can only dream of expressing myself as clearly as Lewis, and reading his stuff would be far clearer an explanation of my beliefs than my own shoddy prose.)

Sometime in there, I also attended my church's presentation of Fr. John Corapi's lecture series on the Catechism. While I disagreed with him occasionally, I was impressed by his personal testimony and the depth of his knowledge. More importantly, the majority of the time, I found that what he said simply jibed with the world I observed.

Further study allowed me more knowledge of my religion, and I never found that I couldn't reconcile its core teachings with the observable world. Someday I might, I don't know. But I haven't yet, so I am what I am.

I've already established that there are things in this world which I believe are unexplainable without some numinous, Otheworldly being. Christianity isn't the only religion to claim miracles, saints, or visions, so why pick that particular religion? Especially if you believe that the miracles, saints, and visions of other religions aren't necessarily "fake."

To answer that, I have to turn to a different sort of explanation.

I'm not a Hindu because the concept of a single God makes more sense to me than many gods. They are, perhaps, a bit TOO human for me. I also have trouble accepting the religious caste system, and the idea that moksha is only available to men. (Yes, I know that individual Hindus may or may not hold these exact beliefs. Many are actually monotheists, for example.) In short, I have a host of troubles which could not allow me to accept Hinduism.

I'm not Muslim because if humanity is imperfect, and God is perfect, I don't see how humans can bridge the gap on their own.

I'm not Sikh, Jain, Shinto, Taoist, a practitioner of vodun, or anything other than Christian for similar reasons. I see flaws in the theology, philosophy, and/or history, much like I'm sure they see flaws in mine. Perhaps I just don't understand them well enough yet.

You'll note, perhaps, two conspicuous absences on my list. I'm not Buddhist largely because I understand human nature differently, and the formulation of the universe differently. I find its faith and philosophy quite sensible and that (for some schools at least), the theology follows very logically from the premeses. I have great admiration for those who've taken the three refuges. However, I DO see things differently, and my premeses are different, and the consequences of that result in Christianity.

I'm not Jewish a) because I wasn't born one, and b) because I believe that Jesus was resurrected and began a new chapter in that story.

None of that was a slam on anyone else's faith. It's just that my own experiences don't lead me to those conclusions.

One of the things I like about my faith is that it allows me a certain great freedom. I believe in a God who is active and present throughout the world, and that people's experiences may lead them to different understandings of that presence. That is, I'm happily content to believe that a person of a different faith can sincerely claim a mystical or supernatural experience, and that it might actually be true (gasp!). People who believe differently than I do don't have to be worshipping the Devil or other such nonsense. Just because I believe that Christianity (and especially Catholicism) has the best understanding of Truth doesn't mean others don't have any understanding at all. Does that make sense? Or am I babbling without knowing it, it being almost 3am?

Anyway, I know I still have stuff to add here, but it's late and I'm tired. If there's anything that needs clarification, let me know.

[Boothby]

So, EL, except for the difference of your one God, you're an atheist, just like me.

Interesting.

[Eaquae Legit]

Well, I'm not done yet.

But from your posts, I see you have gone through much the same process as I have. I respect your ability and your experiences, which is why I rarely bother arguing with you. You have your beliefs and I have mine, and it's highly unlikely anything we say will sway the other.

Unless there was something else you were trying to get at with that post. :p

[Boothby]

No, I just wanted to drag that old chestnut out of the fire one last time!

I'm so busy at work & at life that I really no longer have the time to post the way I used to here (or on any other forums I hang out on!).

Plus, the fact that "EG the movie" appears to be grinding along so slowly, I find I have to distance myself from all of it to keep from getting frustrated all the time.

But re. belief, I've done a lot of reading, and discussing, but there are a lot of people here who are far more intent/intense about it than I am (or ever would be). I recognize the limits of my discourse.

[Dr. Mobius]

I'm still waiting for volume 2.

[eriador]

I just wrote this, but please disregard it for now. Consider the quote box a strike-through. It's not what I should say and not what I want to say (now) but I'm going to save it here so that those of you who are interested can see into my thought process.

EL, you were on a roll there... until you said this:

I'm not Sikh, Jain, Shinto, Taoist, a practitioner of vodun, or anything other than Christian for similar reasons. I see flaws in the theology, philosophy, and/or history, much like I'm sure they see flaws in mine. Perhaps I just don't understand them well enough yet.

After saying that, your entire reason for being a Christian boils down to "I was raised that way and don't feel like changing."
You may have put some thought into what you aren't, but until you've thought about each and every possible religion (of which there are an infinite number) and eliminated all but one, you can't use this as an argument.

Let's go back to the first post on this page. EL said:

The difference is that one makes a statement of Truth, and the other makes a statement of This Is How I See It.

I've said all along that there is no difference. Of course your immediate response will be something along the lines of "then why are you telling me I'm wrong." Let me answer you that and save you the typing:

If there is no objective right and wrong, everything is based on perceptions. If something can be logically found to be true based on our perceptions, it's right, otherwise it's wrong. Now this belief puts me in a tricky place. I can't deny the power of your belief in a God or the fact that you believe it to be true, and so it is true. However, my previous argument still holds: that the only reason to believe in God is being told to. Unless one is exposed to a philosophy that tells them to believe in a God, there is no reason to, because the only way God is real is through circular reasoning.

The obvious question this brings up is how the belief in God got started in the first place. I've also expressed my beliefs on this front, albeit not explicitly. I believe that a God-mythology began not as an honest religious belief, but rather as a way of controlling people. It wouldn't be difficult for some power-hungry SOB to come up with the idea of a God to which he was a priest in order to throw people into the self-perpetuating, circularly-reasoned belief in God that made the priest class powerful.

P.S. If I seem to have changed positions from earlier posts, I will fully admit that I am inconsistent, because I have been deeply considering my beliefs, and, get this... they've changed. Yeah, I know! It must be surprising for all of you marching in dogmatic lockstep! [said in a light-hearted and self-deprecating way]

[Dr. Mobius]

I've said all along that there is no difference. Of course your immediate response will be something along the lines of "then why are you telling me I'm wrong." Let me answer you that and save you the typing:

If there is no objective right and wrong, everything is based on perceptions. If something can be logically found to be true based on our perceptions, it's right, otherwise it's wrong. Now this belief puts me in a tricky place. I can't deny the power of your belief in a God or the fact that you believe it to be true, and so it is true. However, my previous argument still holds: that the only reason to believe in God is being told to. Unless one is exposed to a philosophy that tells them to believe in a God, there is no reason to, because the only way God is real is through circular reasoning.

The obvious question this brings up is how the belief in God got started in the first place. I've also expressed my beliefs on this front, albeit not explicitly. I believe that a God-mythology began not as an honest religious belief, but rather as a way of controlling people. It wouldn't be difficult for some power-hungry SOB to come up with the idea of a God to which he was a priest in order to throw people into the self-perpetuating, circularly-reasoned belief in God that made the priest class powerful.

As far as I'm concerned, religions started out simply and purely enough as nothing more than an attempt by early humans to explain the mysteries of the world around them. Why are we here? etc. The ideas that seemed to make the most sense to the most people were passed along and shared by many and eventually grew and evolved into the religions we have today. Those questions and the people who asked them and continued asking them after everyone else grew complacent would've also been the beginnings of early science and technology.

It wouldn't have been until later when their memberships were large enough and widespread enough in the given population that the heads of one religion or another would've given into greed and megalomania and started controlling what their members can and can't do and dictating what they're supposed to believe.

P.S. If I seem to have changed positions from earlier posts, I will fully admit that I am inconsistent, because I have been deeply considering my beliefs, and, get this... they've changed. Yeah, I know! It must be surprising for all of you marching in dogmatic lockstep!

If you want to be taken seriously, it's generally considered a good idea not to insult the people you wish to hear from.

It's entirely possible that someone can re-examine the religion they were born into from a more or less objective standpoint and decide that that religion is, in fact, the religion they truly believe in and want to stay in for the rest of their lives.

You and I may evolve our beliefs over time, but different people follow different paths and you can't dismiss others as loons or sheep simply because they still believe the same thing they were told to believe since the day they were born.

[eriador]

P.S. If I seem to have changed positions from earlier posts, I will fully admit that I am inconsistent, because I have been deeply considering my beliefs, and, get this... they've changed. Yeah, I know! It must be surprising for all of you marching in dogmatic lockstep!

If you want to be taken seriously, it's generally considered a good idea not to insult the people you wish to hear from.

It's entirely possible that someone can re-examine the religion they were born into from a more or less objective standpoint and decide that that religion is, in fact, the religion they truly believe in and want to stay in for the rest of their lives.

You and I may evolve our beliefs over time, but different people follow different paths and you can't dismiss others as loons or sheep simply because they still believe the same thing they were told to believe since the day they were born.

I meant that to be a little more light-hearted and self-deprecating than it came off...

[Dr. Mobius]

The sarcasm's certainly there, but given your history you'd do better to avoid that kind of humor for now. Most people here think you're an a****** and will take everything you say in that context regardless of how you actually mean it.

[Locke_]

Ok, read this thread. I have so many thoughts, but why should I speak when something I've read can speak more clear and concise than I think I can right now.

"Central to the Christian experience is the art of questioning God. Not belligerant, arrogant questions that have no respect for our maker, but naked, honest, vulnerable, raw questions, arising out of the awe that comes from engaging the living God.

This type of questioning frees us. Frees us from having to have it all figured out. Frees us from having answers to everything. Frees us from always having to be right. It allows us to have moments when we come to the end of our ability to comprehend. Moments when the silence is enough.

The great Abraham Joshua Heschel once said, 'I did not ask for success, I asked for wonder.'

The Christian faith is mysterious to the core. It is about the things and beings that ultimately can't be put into the words. Language fails. And if we do definitively put God into words, we have at that very moment made God something God is not.

Most of us are conditioned to think of mystery in terms of a television show or a novel or a film in which the mystery is solved at the end. Often right before the credits we find out who did it, or who is the long-lost son of whom, or that she is actually a he. Or that Bruce Willis was dead for most of the movie and we just now figured it out.

Mystery is created when key facts are hidden from the viewer. What the writer/director/creator does at the end is pull back the curtain and show us the things that had previously been hidden.

So the mystery gets solved and our questions get answered.

...True mystery, the kind of mystery rooted in the infinite nature of God, gives us answers that actually plunge us into even more... questions.

...

One of the great 'theologians' of our time, Sean Penn, put it this way: 'When everything gets answered, it's fake. The mystery is the truth.'

...

The very nature of orthodox Christian faith is that we never come to the end. It begs for more. More discussion, more inquiry, more debate, more questions.

It's not so much that the Christian faith has a lot of paradoxes. It's that it is a lot of paradoxes. And we cannot resolve a paradox. We have to let it be what it is.

Being a Christian is more about celebrating the mystery than conquering it."

From Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell

Is this overall what marks the dividing line between atheists and theists (represented by Christianity here). Someone said there should be a horizontal line where we could all X where we stand, with one side atheism, the other side theism. I got the jollies because it reminded me of Donnie Darko.

For me it seems more like a vertical line straight down the middle, representing religion. Atheists and theists see the same thing and choose which side of the line to stand on. It's hard for us to convince each other because we all know what's there, and have chosen whether to believe or disbelieve it.

[Scott]

St. Anselm's ontological argument:
"God, by definition, is that which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."

Assuming you don't believe, you can still understand the concept of God. Think of God as the greatest possible, there can be nothing greater. We can all understand that part, understanding does not require belief.

Now imagine a million dollars, or a billion dollars in your mind. Now an actual dollar in your pocket is going to be greater than a million imaginary dollars. So something that exists in reality is greater than something that can only be imagined.

Back to the concept of nothing greater than God. Well, God existing in reality would be greater than just the concept of God. So God must exist.

** This isn't proof. There is no definitive proof. This is simply a logic argument. Believe or don't believe, the choice is yours. **

[eriador]

St. Anselm's ontological argument:
"God, by definition, is that which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."

Let me rephrase that (if I may) to make it coherent: "God is, by definition, the greatest possible thing. Because any existing thing is greater than any imaginary thing, the greatest possible thing must exist."

I see the logic in it, but it's based on a couple of pretty weak assumptions. First, that God is "the greatest possible thing" and second that a real thing is greater than an imaginary thing. Both of these are pretty weak. The first is one of so many definitions of God that I'm beginning to think that none of them are valid. As to the second, the definition of what is "greater" is so vague and so slippery that you can almost twist its meaning any way you want.

Besides, if "This is simply a logic argument." you would have no choice to "Believe or don't believe". If it were truly logical you would have no choice. Of course the vagaries of language can cloud the argument, but if it were truly logical, no "choice" would ever enter discussion.

[zeroguy]

St. Anselm's ontological argument:
"God, by definition, is that which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."

http://machall.com/view.php?date=2003-04-21

[Rei]

Elsewhere on the boards...

St. Anselm in a nerd chatroom
chatroom: Monster Mania

mecha1989: Hey, what if Mothra could breathe in outer space?
ranmasux: Dude! That would roxxor. What if he could breathe in outer space AND travel faster than the speed of light?
tetsuosgrrrl: What if he could breathe in outerspace AND do warp travel AND live long enough to visit other galaxies?!!!
mecha1989: Sweet!
idquomaius: What if he could do all those things *and* existed in reality? That would TOTALLY rock!
mecha1989: ???
ranmasux:???
tetsuosgrrrl:???
g4un1L0: i’m on ur island makin it teh best EVAR.

[eriador]

So the only response to my comment is humor?

Please save that for the game room guys.

[Scott]

http://machall.com/view.php?date=2003-04-21

That is some funny s***! I love jelly donuts, thanks for that link!!! I am so laughing my ass off for real.

Besides, if "This is simply a logic argument." you would have no choice to "Believe or don't believe". If it were truly logical you would have no choice. Of course the vagaries of language can cloud the argument, but if it were truly logical, no "choice" would ever enter discussion.

Not necessarily, there is always a choice. Logical conclusions only require understanding.

If I said 2 + 2 = 5. I now state 5 = 4 +1.
So "logically" one would conclude 2+2 = 4+1.
That in itself is a logical argument, just like the ontological argument. You can understand the argument, but you are not required to accept it. Hence the choice to believe or not. Obviously, you will not come to the conclusion as being truthful if you do not accept any assumptions (2+2=5), but I never stated the ontological was type of "proof".

[eriador]

Good point. You have the choice to accept or reject the premises. Touché.

However, a good rhetorician can base an argument on premises that are universally acceptable. That's what I'm trying to do with this thread, get people to make their arguments with universally acceptable premises.

Actually, no premise will be universally acceptable, but I guess you could say premises that can be accepted by any reasonable person.

[VelvetElvis]

any reasonable person.

If feeling secure enough to believe in something bigger, stronger, and smarter than me that I will never truly comprehend makes me unreasonable...

[Locke_]

Ironically, doesn't it seem illogical to reject a world's history of civilizations where there has always been a majorial belief in something higher? It seems like humans have evolved intelligently, psychologically, physically, etc but we have been pretty consistent in believing in something higher and more powerful. It's just odd to me that with all of our evolution, that's one thing that's never changed in people. All civilizations have a created some kind of religion even if they'd never heard of any such thing when they'd never encountered one another.

[eriador]

any reasonable person.

If feeling secure enough to believe in something bigger, stronger, and smarter than me that I will never truly comprehend makes me unreasonable...

Secure? Didn't you mean to say arrogant? That's what that belief really is, an arrogance. Believing in something that you "will never truly comprehend" might at first seem like a humble statement, but really I find it arrogant. Saying that there is something you can never understand is really an underhanded way of saying that there are limits to what you can know. When you make claims as to the base nature of this unknowable thing, you're really saying that you know enough of the limited knowledge available to humankind to come to a decision like that. It's a close-minded, arrogant view. Close-mindedness and arrogance are not marks of reason.

Locke_: I've been over this. Deception and hunger for power are pretty universal human traits. I see no reason to change my mind based on the decisions of those before me. For the millionth time in this thread you're relying on circular reasoning: if there is a God, then there is a God. If x then x. It's stupid.

[Rei]

The deception and hunger for power reasons are fairly weak reasons for religion being prevalent in nearly every society, if not indeed every society. They are reasons for religion to be corrupted in society, not for it to exist. I do not mean that this universal presence of religion is conclusive of the existence of a higher being.

However, it would never work to fool great numbers of people in every society that there is a higher being if people were not already pre-disposed to believe in said higher being. And if people were already pre-disposed to believe in a higher being, they would not wait for a charismatic con-artist to teach them about a random higher being.

[eriador]

I'm sorry, but it still doesn't MEAN anything. What people have thought before has no bearing of the truth.

[BonitoDeMadrid]

Ironically, doesn't it seem illogical to reject a world's history of civilizations where there has always been a majorial belief in something higher? It seems like humans have evolved intelligently, psychologically, physically, etc but we have been pretty consistent in believing in something higher and more powerful. It's just odd to me that with all of our evolution, that's one thing that's never changed in people. All civilizations have a created some kind of religion even if they'd never heard of any such thing when they'd never encountered one another.

My theory is that the belief in something higher is connected with the evolution of human thinking. In the beginning of civilization, people had no other explanations for many things, like fire, for example, as humans always asked questions about the world- but were too weak-minded then to answer by a proofable way. (I think I just invented a word)
It was a lot easier to attribute things to a greater, higher being than to actually explore them and think about them, thus a God was created in practically every society.

Then, once one society developed a God and lived with it fully, if they conquered another society, the other society would automatically be forced to believe in the conquering society's God, thus spreading the religion around, and "undoing the Tower of Babylon" per se. Paganism, Judaism somewhat and Islam are examples of this way of religion spreading.

Another way to spread the created religion is to simply spread the word around, however this was not sure to work as you would be haunted by a society with an earlier religion- like in the case of Christianity, however this too requires a high-powered individual (I believe it was Emperor Justinian or Constantine from the Eastern Roman Empire, in that case) to later spread the religion by ways of force.

Later created religions would need a charismatic leader, and many person-to-person conversations from believers. But they would still be created.

In short, religion creation needs people who ask questions about life, a charismatic leader and believers. Spreading the religion, however, needs war; that's a reason for many of the wars of the old age.

...But that's just my theory, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were wrong (but I'm just pessimistic).

[Rei]

eriador, it means that we have removed one more erroneous reason suggesting that there is no higher being. That is what it means.

[VelvetElvis]

Secure? Didn't you mean to say arrogant? That's what that belief really is, an arrogance. Believing in something that you "will never truly comprehend" might at first seem like a humble statement, but really I find it arrogant. Saying that there is something you can never understand is really an underhanded way of saying that there are limits to what you can know. When you make claims as to the base nature of this unknowable thing, you're really saying that you know enough of the limited knowledge available to humankind to come to a decision like that. It's a close-minded, arrogant view. Close-mindedness and arrogance are not marks of reason.

I know that you are mad at me for calling your bluff, but really, it isn't arrogance. (unlike your "any reasonable person" jab, which WAS arrogance)

The idea isn't mine. I didn't come to that decision. It is clearly stated in the "limited knowledge available to humankind", also known as the Bible.

P.S. God isn't unknowable, just not fully knowable.

[Scott]

My theory is that the belief in something higher is connected with the evolution of human thinking.

I agree with this. I think the belief in something higher is a natural progression with human life. If there was sentient life elsewhere in the universe, I would guarantee the majority of them believe in God or some form.

I think God is simply unproveable (I make up words too) from a human POV. That is why it is called faith.. it would be a universal TRUTH if there was PROOF. Frankly, I don't think God wanted to make that easy for us. He gave us free will (and the movie Free Will-y) and He wanted us to chose individually, from our own minds and hearts.

Believing in God is not arrogant. Children believe in God. Sure one can argue that their parents force their beliefs and they have no choice, but the point is many children TRULY believe in God. They can't explain why, they sure can't prove why, they just do... just like many adults.

The argument that children also TRULY believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc is moot because non-believers don't believe in God, so to them God already belongs in the category of pure imagination.

[Locke_]

Is it such a crime to believe in an unproven higher being when we really haven't even figured out the Earth, and physics, and evolution, and the rest of the maths and sciences yet? Is gravity not still considered a theory and mystery regardless of what we know about its indescribable existence? Is Einstein's theory not dependent upon gravity waves that we have failed to detect directly in order for the theory to be true? Did Stephen Hawking not recently claim an error in his Brief History of Time?

It's as if you look at God as if he's the only idea we haven't proven. Yet... logically... we accept gravity because of what we feel and its affects on us and the universe. It's sensory, but even that is based on intuition. But gravity is theoretical. Einstein's theory of gravity is accepted, regardless of the undetected gravity waves. With this in mind, is it so wrong to believe in God even though he has not been "proved."

[eriador]

Secure? Didn't you mean to say arrogant? That's what that belief really is, an arrogance. Believing in something that you "will never truly comprehend" might at first seem like a humble statement, but really I find it arrogant. Saying that there is something you can never understand is really an underhanded way of saying that there are limits to what you can know. When you make claims as to the base nature of this unknowable thing, you're really saying that you know enough of the limited knowledge available to humankind to come to a decision like that. It's a close-minded, arrogant view. Close-mindedness and arrogance are not marks of reason.

I know that you are mad at me for calling your bluff, but really, it isn't arrogance. (unlike your "any reasonable person" jab, which WAS arrogance)

The idea isn't mine. I didn't come to that decision. It is clearly stated in the "limited knowledge available to humankind", also known as the Bible.

Yeah, 'cause the Bible is decidedly true, even though there are other, equally valid sources that contradict it. You're one to talk about arrogance, you can't even fathom the idea that the Bible isn't absolute truth.

And for the record, there was no bluff.

And do you mind explaining what was arrogant about my "reasonable person" line? Was it that I was implying that I was REASONABLE? (My goodness! It's unthinkable! A person saying they're reasonable! They must be arrogant!) It only goes to show how unreasonable you can be.

As a matter of fact, I have heard "believers" say that a belief in God IS unreasonable, which they somehow embrace. I really don't see how easily people can reject reason for superstition.

P.S. God isn't unknowable, just not fully knowable.

Doesn't change my point. You're claiming to have enough knowledge to make definitive claims about the nature of the universe, while others readily admit that those claims are not possible to make. All through this thread, that's been the back-and-forth. I've said that there is no evidence to support the existence of a God, and you claim to have knowledge of one. Arrogance. Please, be a little bit fair.

--------

Bonito: I like your point. Once again, it is a much more plausible explanation than the one provided by "believers". Occam's razor holds this to be true.

--------

Locke_, learn about scientific theory. If you do that and still want to consider the claim that there is a God like a scientific claim, read Richard Dawkins. Come back when you're done.

[Eaquae Legit]

Dawkins and theology is like a kindergartener and his crayola drawing claiming he's drawn the Mona Lisa.

[eriador]

... and Locke_'s science is worse.

[Locke_]

My science? My claim? I don't think I tried to provide you with proof, much less scientific. If anything, I was genuinely asking you questions. I was almost comparing God's uncertainty to the uncertainties of science (not trying to prove His certainty in the same way as scientific certainty). I even said he was "an unproven higher being" and an "idea we haven't proven yet." Where is my claim?

I mean, what kind of proof are you looking for? Or is that your point? What is your frame of reference? What other thing has been proven that you would like us to prove God in the same manner?

Can you accept proof as an impossibility? Or are you just pissed off that people could believe something that cannot be "proved?" Or maybe you just don't get it and want to? Pissed off about that...

These are QUESTIONS. Not "claims." Or a "science" of my own.

You ask where is the proof, but I ask what kind of proof are you looking for?

[eriador]

I was just saying that it was a s***** comparison. You really need to read up on science. Short version: with these scientific things that we haven't "proven" yet a basic process was followed: an observation was made, a theory was come up with that explained the observation, the theory was used to make a prediction, and then an observation confirmed the prediction. It's called the scientific method. Theories like gravity explain a huge number of observations and are supported by another huge number of confirmed predictions. Reasons for the belief in God are so much weaker than that, so much less universal. That's all I'm saying. Do you get that or do I need to talk slower?

[Locke_]

Yeah yeah, learned all of it back in 9th grade. But once again, that's beside the point and not was I was getting at. I wasn't trying to prove God then. I wasn't trying to associate God to science. I wasn't compare God to the scientific method as a process of evidence. You said it yourself when you said, "Theories like gravity explain a huge number of observations and are supported by another huge number of confirmed predictions." THEORIES. Not one hundred percent certain. Open to change. But you embrace them and support them as truth.

And once again: perspective
What you see as weak reasons are strong enough for others. Who are you speaking for?

Also, it's pretty amusing at how selective you are with your responses, commenting and commenting and commenting on what I/we have to say without responding to my questions.

Btw way, I don't think I'm going to read the Dawkins book. The comment about my science that you tacked on EL's remark seems to indicate her description is true. And I'm not into Crayons.