Belief In God

[Sconnor]

Recently, I have been debating a Christian. The last thing he sent me was his reasons for believing in God. It seemed, he plucked it, word for word out of a book. Does anyone know what book he may be using? And please feel free to comment on all his "proofs". Have at it! have a feeding frenzy! have fun!

Thanks, sconnor

 

 

Food for thought:

 

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire. Everyone experiences a desire for something beyond this present existence. There must be something outside our world to fill that desire, namely God.

Finite changing things exist. Every finite changing thing must be caused by something else. There can not be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists. Namely God.

There are so many scientific findings that suggest that our planet is fine-tuned for life. The tilt of the earth is 23 degrees. The distance from the earth to the sun, 93 million miles. There is just the right amount of nitrogen in our atmosphere to sustain plant and animal life. The rotation of the earth is obviously planned because the temperature during the evening would be too drastic to sustain life as we know it, and if it were faster the wind velocity would be so violent that we would be whipped off the face of the planet. Psalm 19:1--God has left a testimony about himself. http://www.reasons.org/

All men are conscious of an objective moral law. (ex. Do not murder) Moral laws imply the existence of a law giver. Therefore there must be a supreme moral law giver.

By definition God is the greatest conceivable being. It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind only. If God only existed as a concept in our minds, then something greater than God could potentially exist. Namely God could exist in reality as well as in our minds. So since God is the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality not only in our minds.

If the universe had a beginning, and anything that has a beginning is caused by something else, then the universe was caused by something. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the basis of this concept)

All designs imply a designer. There is a great design in the universe. Therefore there must be a designer of the universe. Namely God.

 

 

Still praying,

 

Adam

[Mongo]

Um... I don't understand it so I don't believe it.

 

Typical ultimate cause clap trap.

 

So tell me... why doesn't the "Who made god" argument not suffice? To simple?

 

Personally I'd rather not get into an argument on the existance of god simply because I've never observed that anyone who displays the "I don't understand it so I don't believe it." paradigm ever progresses to proper skepticism.

 

You don't have to agree... just say... "I don't believe in the existance of god because I see no evidence but if you find that nature is best explained by god then let's move beyond that to other issues."

 

By moving to this arena you can tackle more managable arguments like Pascal's Wager which is badly flawed. Or you can argue issues like the origins of the bible for which there is ample evidence that xtianity was co-opted by Constantine. Or questions like why Xtianity rather than Islam or Hinduism.

 

Mongo

[white_raven23]

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire.

No shit. Try desiring something you know nothing of though. If someone in Uganda has never heard of Cocoa Krispies....they are never going to wake up suddenly wanting Cocoa Krispies! So desire existing before the object being desired exists is just putting the cart before the horse.

 

Everyone experiences a desire for something beyond this present existence.

Assumption. Everyone??? Generalizations are like big red flags.

 

There must be something outside our world to fill that desire, namely God.

Assumption. One of the warm and fuzzy variety. Certainly not based on the examples of disappointment of wishes in Real Life, so the wishes are simply extended beyond Real Life into fantasyland where all dweams come twue!

 

 

I'd address the rest of this....but I'm at work, so my posts can't go on too long.

[GraphicsGuy]

1. Everyone experiences a desire for something beyond this present existence.

 

2. There must be something outside our world to fill that desire, namely God.

 

3. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists.

 

4. There are so many scientific findings that suggest that our planet is fine-tuned for life.

 

5. There is just the right amount of nitrogen in our atmosphere to sustain plant and animal life.

 

6. The rotation of the earth is obviously planned

 

7. All men are conscious of an objective moral law. (ex. Do not murder) Moral laws imply the existence of a law giver. Therefore there must be a supreme moral law giver.

 

8. If God only existed as a concept in our minds, then something greater than God could potentially exist.

 

9. So since God is the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality not only in our minds.

 

10. If the universe had a beginning, and anything that has a beginning is caused by something else, then the universe was caused by something.

 

11. All designs imply a designer.

 

Wow, Sconnor, this guy is stating absolutes left, right, and center, isn't he? "God" is the answer for everything with him so he doesn't even bother to ask questions. I'm not the best debater in the world, but it's still fun to respond:

 

1. Yes, everyone's afraid to die so some of them latch onto the first "there is an afterlife" promise they hear.

 

2. So how do you know it's specifically YOUR god?

 

3. This makes my mind explode. There must be an uncaused cause? Who says the "uncaused cause" has to be intelligent? How do we know the universe isn't uncaused? What if the universe explodes/implodes in 3 trillion years, rips a hole in the space/time continuum, and causes it's own creation. New life out of death is a pretty common theme on earth...

 

4. And it's also been de-tuned time after time to the point where it was uninhabitable by anything but bacteria and microbes.

 

5. This is a delicate balance. There have been numerous times where the oxygen content has been much higher and then drastically sagged killing all kinds of lifeforms that couldn't adapt to the environmental changes.

 

6. Obviously?

 

7. Man isn't smart enough to develop his own laws? So, ancient man couldn't have witnessed a murder take place and thought, "Hmm, that doesn't seem right. Maybe we shouldn't do that..." ???

 

8. Potentially. That does not mean he does.

 

9. This whole concept making me want to scream. There are MILLIONS of things we could think of in our minds AND THEY WOULDN'T BE REAL! Fine, I've thought of a God greater than yours. He is wise, benevolent, all-forgiving, all-accepting, all-loving, there is no death, no pain, no hell, and heaven is a giant pleasure dome waiting to fulfill our every desire. Gee it MUST exist!

 

10. Repeating yourself now?

 

11. All HUMAN designs of inanimate, non-thinking, non-living objects. Life is far, FAR more complex. Too complex to happen by even the most powerful being simply speaking some magic words and having it happen.

[Purple]

I do not recognise the book, but it starts off with a false assumption.

 

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire.

 

This just is not true. People desire things that do not exist, it happens. I'd really like to have a pink unicorn, really really, I desire one. No matter how much I may desire one that will not make pink unicorns exist.

 

Since the beginning assumption is wrong and it seems like everything after is based on that assumption everything else falls apart.

[HoustonHorn]

There are so many scientific findings that suggest that our planet is fine-tuned for life. The tilt of the earth is 23 degrees. The distance from the earth to the sun, 93 million miles. There is just the right amount of nitrogen in our atmosphere to sustain plant and animal life. The rotation of the earth is obviously planned because the temperature during the evening would be too drastic to sustain life as we know it, and if it were faster the wind velocity would be so violent that we would be whipped off the face of the planet.

That argument has always bothered me. It's assuming that the earth was created to be a perfect place for humans and all the fuzzy little bunnies to live. I see it as the other way around. Humans and all the cute fuzzy bunnies are here because that's how life evolved (yeah, probably a bad word to use with your guy). If the earth were closer to the sun there probably wouldn't be polar bears. If the earth were farther away the oceans might be solid ice and we'd have no fish.

[R. S. Martin]

Recently, I have been debating a Christian. The last thing he sent me was his reasons for believing in God. It seemed, he plucked it, word for word out of a book. Does anyone know what book he may be using? And please feel free to comment on all his "proofs". Have at it! have a feeding frenzy! have fun!

Thanks, sconnor

 

Sconner, I can't "locate" where he got all his material but I know what intellectual traditions or schools of thought some of the arguments resemble. He gives one link. I looked it up. It comes from a website with a telling title: Reasons to Believe: International and interdenominational science-faith think-tank providing powerful new reasons from science to believe in Jesus Christ.

 

I did not read beyond that title but I would guess it's creationist to the core. He's just lipping off arguments that were developed a couple centuries ago. I'll go through it.

 

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire. Everyone experiences a desire for something beyond this present existence. There must be something outside our world to fill that desire, namely God.

 

This is a close parallel to Charles Hodge's argument about the eye. Since there is such an organ as an eye, there must be something for that organ to see. Hodge wrote that ca 1870, and I am sure it was not original with him. Fundies today like to mimic him.

 

Finite changing things exist. Every finite changing thing must be caused by something else. There can not be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists. Namely God.

 

This sounds like Christianized Aritotelian thought. You can't have infinite regression, so you insert God. Aristotle had the Unmoved Mover, or something like that. I've never actually read Aristotle.

 

There are so many scientific findings that suggest that our planet is fine-tuned for life. The tilt of the earth is 23 degrees. The distance from the earth to the sun, 93 million miles. There is just the right amount of nitrogen in our atmosphere to sustain plant and animal life. The rotation of the earth is obviously planned because the temperature during the evening would be too drastic to sustain life as we know it, and if it were faster the wind velocity would be so violent that we would be whipped off the face of the planet. Psalm 19:1--God has left a testimony about himself. http://www.reasons.org/

 

This is from that creationist site. Here is my counter-argument. Let's say the Big Bang theory is correct. (My science is so bad you could sell me and I wouldn't know what happened, so you can be pretty sure you're getting an objective view here; I have no ax to grind.) If the Big Bang theory is correct, and if things evolved by natural selection and survival of the fittest--new generations adapted in minute ways to new environments, then it stands to reason that things all turned out exactly right. How so? Well, I have designed a few items in my time. Clothing, for example. Buildings, for another. Repairs for both clothing and buildings. I don't do it the regular way. Things evolve.

 

Step 1. Get a basic idea of what is needed re material, shape and size and tools.

 

Step 2. Cut to approximate shape and size. Fit for shape and size. Adjust. Fit again. Adjust some more. And so on.

 

Step 3. When sure that shape and size is correct, sew or nail permanent.

End Product: Made-to-measure carpentry, or tailor-made suit, depending on what I was doing. That is evolution pure and simple.

 

Another example. Look at the design in sand or on the face of a snow bank, both carved by a few hours of storm and wind. If wind and rain or snow can do that in a few hours, think what can happen in a couple billion years. Why couldn't a perfect universe evolve? And why wouldn't things be exactly the way they are? Why would they be off-kilter? And, as has been pointed out on these forums, if an intelligent designer were behind the human body design a few things would be designed somewhat differently. Perhaps it really did "just happen."

 

All men are conscious of an objective moral law. (ex. Do not murder) Moral laws imply the existence of a law giver. Therefore there must be a supreme moral law giver.

 

This sounds like some more from where Hodge got his ideas. Again, I have a counter argument, from cultural anthropology. Might be in philosophy, too. If I steal from you, what's to keep you from stealing from me? That's the social contract idea. In hunter-gatherer society, if you kill your tribesmen you lose your partner in acquiring food for the stomach and protection from enemies and help in building homes. If you kill all your neighbouring tribes--or deal unfairly as in stealing or cheating, you alienate the very people you depend on in case of catastrophe. Killing and stealing MAKES NO SENSE!

 

By definition God is the greatest conceivable being. It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind only. If God only existed as a concept in our minds, then something greater than God could potentially exist. Namely God could exist in reality as well as in our minds. So since God is the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality not only in our minds.

 

I think they say this comes from Anselm, i.e. "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

 

If the universe had a beginning, and anything that has a beginning is caused by something else, then the universe was caused by something. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the basis of this concept)

All designs imply a designer. There is a great design in the universe. Therefore there must be a designer of the universe. Namely God.

 

So THAT is the Law of Thermodynamics??? I assumed it to be something beyond the ability of my brain to comprehend. This is absurdly simply and I think I have already produced a counter-argument above. So far as I can see, which might not be all that far, it's built on the Aristotelian model that you can't have infinite regression, and it has Intelligent Design creationism mixed into it. It is very crudely-written and, in my opinion, seems to have been produced by a very unscholarly mind--much inferior to the opening paragraphs.

 

Still praying,

 

Adam

 

As you will so long as your brain functions.

 

Sconner, take no offense. All it means is that he's still breathing.

[R. S. Martin]

There are so many scientific findings that suggest that our planet is fine-tuned for life. The tilt of the earth is 23 degrees. The distance from the earth to the sun, 93 million miles. There is just the right amount of nitrogen in our atmosphere to sustain plant and animal life. The rotation of the earth is obviously planned because the temperature during the evening would be too drastic to sustain life as we know it, and if it were faster the wind velocity would be so violent that we would be whipped off the face of the planet.

That argument has always bothered me. It's assuming that the earth was created to be a perfect place for humans and all the fuzzy little bunnies to live. I see it as the other way around. Humans and all the cute fuzzy bunnies are here because that's how life evolved (yeah, probably a bad word to use with your guy). If the earth were closer to the sun there probably wouldn't be polar bears. If the earth were farther away the oceans might be solid ice and we'd have no fish.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant but stated better.

[RIPw4]

Everyone of those arguments are damn near word for word out of my philosophy book from College..haha

[R. S. Martin]

Everyone of those arguments are damn near word for word out of my philosophy book from College..haha

 

Are you at a Christian college?

 

The reason I'm asking--and I'm actually quite serious with my question--is that I'm asked to write an article for Canadian Freethinker. I am thinking about fixing up my post that I wrote for this thread, maybe develop it into an article. But first I need to find out about copyright and intellectual property, that sort of thing. Can anyone verify that it is lifted word for word out of a published source, and what that source would be? Sconnor, would your debate partner give that information? Maybe you wouldn't want to ask.

[Sconnor]

Everyone of those arguments are damn near word for word out of my philosophy book from College..haha

 

Are you at a Christian college?

 

The reason I'm asking--and I'm actually quite serious with my question--is that I'm asked to write an article for Canadian Freethinker. I am thinking about fixing up my post that I wrote for this thread, maybe develop it into an article. But first I need to find out about copyright and intellectual property, that sort of thing. Can anyone verify that it is lifted word for word out of a published source, and what that source would be? Sconnor, would your debate partner give that information? Maybe you wouldn't want to ask.

 

Oh, I asked, because it was the first time in our debate that it didn't sound like the person I was debating. At first he said he believed in God because of bushes and trees and there had to be a creator. When I pushed him for more proof-info, he gave me that crap. I think he is embarrassed, because he refuses to even acknowledge my query.

[Ouroboros]

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire.

I have a desire that all religious people will wake up from their dream of imagination and fantasy and become real and live in the world in peace... so does it means that this Christian will drop his faith for me then and stop nagging about his favorite delusion?

[R. S. Martin]

Everyone of those arguments are damn near word for word out of my philosophy book from College..haha

 

Are you at a Christian college?

 

The reason I'm asking--and I'm actually quite serious with my question--is that I'm asked to write an article for Canadian Freethinker. I am thinking about fixing up my post that I wrote for this thread, maybe develop it into an article. But first I need to find out about copyright and intellectual property, that sort of thing. Can anyone verify that it is lifted word for word out of a published source, and what that source would be? Sconnor, would your debate partner give that information? Maybe you wouldn't want to ask.

 

Oh, I asked, because it was the first time in our debate that it didn't sound like the person I was debating. At first he said he believed in God because of bushes and trees and there had to be a creator. When I pushed him for more proof-info, he gave me that crap. I think he is embarrassed, because he refuses to even acknowledge my query.

 

I figured out how to handle it without the references and without violating any copyrights. I am focusing on the bondage of the religious thinker versus the freedom of the freethinker when developing theories about how the world works. I use as examples the one paragraph that he gives the website for and my counter-argument. I even found a Bible verse to prove that the christian thinker is in bondage--a slave.

 

But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:17-18, NRSV).

Maybe it's a mean streak I've got but I love using the bible against christians. Doing a degree in theology hones my skills.

[R. S. Martin]

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire.

I have a desire that all religious people will wake up from their dream of imagination and fantasy and become real and live in the world in peace... so does it means that this Christian will drop his faith for me then and stop nagging about his favorite delusion?

 

I think the Christian would argue that you weren't born with that desire but that the desire for god is in-born. Evidence exists to support both views--theirs and ours. Around 1900 a lot of research was being done on this. I'm not sure what Freud concluded but Jung seemed to think some form of religion was in-born. He was not traditional Christian. I'm not sure what he believed. I'm of the opinion that the fundies are quoting the 1900 findings, or earlier. A century later research is on-going and fundies have rejected scientific discoveries a long time ago.

[Ouroboros]

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire.

I have a desire that all religious people will wake up from their dream of imagination and fantasy and become real and live in the world in peace... so does it means that this Christian will drop his faith for me then and stop nagging about his favorite delusion?

 

I think the Christian would argue that you weren't born with that desire but that the desire for god is in-born. Evidence exists to support both views--theirs and ours. Around 1900 a lot of research was being done on this. I'm not sure what Freud concluded but Jung seemed to think some form of religion was in-born. He was not traditional Christian. I'm not sure what he believed. I'm of the opinion that the fundies are quoting the 1900 findings, or earlier. A century later research is on-going and fundies have rejected scientific discoveries a long time ago.

But then the phrase "For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire" is incomplete. It's just like many other arguments from religious people, they only state half of what they mean in their premise and then they make outrageous conclusions, and in there they have intentionally hidden the real meaning of their conditions.

 

Maybe then it should say: For every desire that God has given you there is something that exists - created by God - to fill that desire." Which means you have to pressupose God's existence to prove God's existence through this premise, and that's not correct logic. You can't pressupose the conclusion in the premise.

[GraphicsGuy]

The rotation of the earth is obviously planned because the temperature during the evening would be too drastic to sustain life as we know it, and if it were faster the wind velocity would be so violent that we would be whipped off the face of the planet.

 

Hmm...I wanted to go back to this earth rotation thing again because I started wondering about it earlier today. Does the earth's rotation affect wind velocity?

 

Not according to the short bit of research I did. Yes, the Coriolis effect does influence wind currents, but reductions in air pressure reduce frictional drag and that is the major factor in actual wind speed. Reduce air pressure, reduce wind speed.

 

Really, if wind speed was in direct correlation to the speed of the earth's rotation then there would be practically no air movement at the poles and constant gale-force winds at the equator.

 

I am wondering if a faster rotation may actually lead to higher air-pressure and, thusly, lower wind speeds...?

[Ouroboros]

I read somewhere that the rotation of Earth is currently slowing down.

[GraphicsGuy]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

 

0.005 seconds per year according to that source.

 

Better (and more interesting) analysis: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae695.cfm

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

Recently, I have been debating a Christian. The last thing he sent me was his reasons for believing in God. It seemed, he plucked it, word for word out of a book. Does anyone know what book he may be using? And please feel free to comment on all his "proofs". Have at it! have a feeding frenzy! have fun!

Thanks, sconnor

 

 

Food for thought:

 

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire. Everyone experiences a desire for something beyond this present existence. There must be something outside our world to fill that desire, namely God.

Finite changing things exist. Every finite changing thing must be caused by something else. There can not be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists. Namely God.

There are so many scientific findings that suggest that our planet is fine-tuned for life. The tilt of the earth is 23 degrees. The distance from the earth to the sun, 93 million miles. There is just the right amount of nitrogen in our atmosphere to sustain plant and animal life. The rotation of the earth is obviously planned because the temperature during the evening would be too drastic to sustain life as we know it, and if it were faster the wind velocity would be so violent that we would be whipped off the face of the planet. Psalm 19:1--God has left a testimony about himself. http://www.reasons.org/

All men are conscious of an objective moral law. (ex. Do not murder) Moral laws imply the existence of a law giver. Therefore there must be a supreme moral law giver.

By definition God is the greatest conceivable being. It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind only. If God only existed as a concept in our minds, then something greater than God could potentially exist. Namely God could exist in reality as well as in our minds. So since God is the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality not only in our minds.

If the universe had a beginning, and anything that has a beginning is caused by something else, then the universe was caused by something. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the basis of this concept)

All designs imply a designer. There is a great design in the universe. Therefore there must be a designer of the universe. Namely God.

 

 

Still praying,

 

Adam

 

For every desire there is something that exists to fill that desire.

 

The existence of a desire does not mean that the fulfillment of that desire exists.

 

Everyone experiences a desire for something beyond this present existence.

 

While many people may, not everyone does. Drastic generalization.

 

There must be something outside our world to fill that desire, namely God.

 

Again, the existence of the desire does not require the existence of the fulfillment of that desire.

 

Finite changing things exist. Every finite changing thing must be caused by something else. There can not be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists. Namely God.

 

There is no evidence to support the idea of “god†as this “uncaused causeâ€. There is every bit as much (or more of) a reason to believe that the universe itself is eternal in some form or another as there is to accept the idea that there is an “uncaused cause†outside our universe that set everything into motion, “namely godâ€.

 

There are so many scientific findings that suggest that our planet is fine-tuned for life. The tilt of the earth is 23 degrees. The distance from the earth to the sun, 93 million miles. There is just the right amount of nitrogen in our atmosphere to sustain plant and animal life. The rotation of the earth is obviously planned because the temperature during the evening would be too drastic to sustain life as we know it, and if it were faster the wind velocity would be so violent that we would be whipped off the face of the planet.

 

This entire theory is completely anthropocentric and egotistical. The earth is not fine tuned for us. We are fine-tuned for the conditions on earth. These conditions have changed over billions of years and different life forms have evolved to those changes or they have died. When the conditions change too drastically for us, we will adapt and evolve or we will die...but I doubt it will be by being "whipped off the face of the planet".

 

 

Psalm 19:1--God has left a testimony about himself.

 

Ancient men wrote the book based on their superstitious ideas. No god wrote the bible. No god “left a testimony about himselfâ€.

 

http://www.reasons.org/

 

ID Theorist SHIT. Intentional misinterpretations of science to suit religion.

 

All men are conscious of an objective moral law. (ex. Do not murder) Moral laws imply the existence of a law giver. Therefore there must be a supreme moral law giver.

 

There is ever increasing evidence that morality is an evolutionary by-product.

 

By definition God is the greatest conceivable being. It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind only. If God only existed as a concept in our minds, then something greater than God could potentially exist. Namely God could exist in reality as well as in our minds. So since God is the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality not only in our minds.

 

I'd be surprised if this guy even understands the argument he’s espousing here, but that’d be understandable. It’s convoluted to say the least. It’s St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for God’s Existence. Here’s the argument as laid out by Anselm:

 

1) God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible.

 

2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your mind.)

 

3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.)

 

4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have been greater than He is.

 

5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.)

 

6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible.

 

7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is impossible.

 

8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind.

 

Essentially this says that if god is the greatest being conceivable, exists in our minds, and possibly exists in reality, the only way that it could be greater is if it were absolutely real and not just in our minds. Therefore, the greatest being conceivable would be real and not just in our minds, so god must be real. It boggles my mind that this is considered one of the greatest ontological arguments of all time.

 

If the universe had a beginning, and anything that has a beginning is caused by something else, then the universe was caused by something. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the basis of this concept)

 

We don’t know that the universe had a beginning. Throwing out scientific terminology doesn’t mean you understand the terminology and this guy obviously doesn’t understand the second law of thermodynamics.

 

All designs imply a designer. There is a great design in the universe. Therefore there must be a designer of the universe. Namely God.

 

Paley’s “Watchmaker†argument. How many times does this have to be refuted? There is perceived design in the universe. There is no actual design. If there is actual design, then god’s quite the joker. Here are some of the fruits and veggies he’s designed recently:

 

[R. S. Martin]

Maybe then it should say: For every desire that God has given you there is something that exists - created by God - to fill that desire." Which means you have to pressupose God's existence to prove God's existence through this premise, and that's not correct logic. You can't pressupose the conclusion in the premise.

 

This helps me understand. I had a similar discussion on my forums with a Christian. I was arguing that the idea of god comes from a god-spot on the brain. He was saying that god put a desire in the human psyche to long for god--only he did put it that simply. Basically he said it would make sense that god put a desire in the human psyche to long for god, and challenged me to disagree with him. That seemed like crazy logic but I couldn't put my finger on the problem. I can see now that it's the same kind of logic we're talking about here.

 

I could be wrong, but I think I see a parallel between this argument and the argument that there must be something for the eye to see--otherwise it would never have been created. Charles Hodge uses that analogy to prove that the desire humans feel for God proves that God exists. BUT THAT ASSUMES ALL PEOPLE DESIRE GOD!

 

I've been trying to understand inductive logic. Is that what this is? He takes a few facts (1. the fact that he desires god and 2. the fact that the bible says god exists) and builds theoretical models on it. He never checks empirical reality to see if his models are true. He does read atheist literature but he discounts their testimonies and says they are lying about their true feelings. The Bible says it so he says it. 130-odd years later the fundies still swear by it.