Glad to hear you have faith! And I would mention people seeing Jesus do miracles, and saying “It’s of the devil” (Mt. 12:24). Or Frank Turek challenging people by asking them “If Christianity was true, would you become a Christian?” He reports that some hesitate, and some say no! He then remarks that this shows that some are not on a truth quest, they are on a happiness quest. That “there is a God” is an unacceptable conclusion, they don’t want there to be a God, they want to be their own God.
So this is a known response, this does happen, sadly.
No, I point out here that their logic is quite correct! The problem is not with their reasoning, instead it’s with their perception that everyone is out to get them, it’s with their premise.
Quite so! You have perhaps seen the FarSide cartoon where a mathematician has put up a proof on the blackboard, where one step reads “And then a miracle happens…”
Or once I put up a proof for my math teacher’s challenge, and as I was presenting it, he said “There! You divided by zero.” And I had! But the challenge was to prove a true statement, only my proof was faulty, even though it got the right result.
I’m sorry that happened, now I can’t claim to know your case well enough to describe it, but I can say I had the same wrestling with doubts, and reading apologetics, notable C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles, a Preliminary Study helped me a lot. But even after reading a lot of apologetics (I mean, a lot!), and even after experiencing a number of healings, some of them dramatic, and even after God answering my prayer for him to do X for me, if he cared for me, and X happened, my faith wasn’t growing like I had hoped. Very odd, and unexpected, I know.
But all that changed, when I stopped praying seeking insight and help, and instead started recently to pray “Who are you, Lord?” Kind of along the lines of “If you are real, reveal yourself to me,” I started seeking not to strengthen my faith directly, but indirectly, seeking to know God better.
The more you know someone, the more you will trust them, if they’re trustworthy. That’s what I recommend now, God is a person, not a set of propositions. Evidence for propositions can be helpful, but they’re no substitute for seeking and developing a relationship…
Maybe let me present my own arguments? But you do present your assumption in response to the problem outlined by Darwin and Haldane and others, if you do that, you are obviously presenting your assumption as a conclusion. You are not merely presenting an assumption, from which you derive nothing.
I’ve presented reasons that our reasoning should actually be imperfect, even if it’s derived from a perfect, self-existent reason. Perfect reasoning may well require omniscience, for one! I mentioned other reasons. Now you need to address my responses, and not just repeat your conclusion, as if I said nothing in reply.
But you must show that the foundation I propose is not appropriate, or flawed, or something. For starters, how is what I propose, wish-fulfillment?
But you all are not doing that, is my point! When people say I am only speculating, they are pointing to a source that my source is some need to speculate, such as wish-fulfillment, as you did just now. They are not measuring what I say against reality, my conclusions are actually being dismissed, not examined.
That was not my question, I wasn’t asking you to list all possible wrong answers, you were claiming my answer does not address your challenges and questions, I need you now to defend your claim.
Well, lots of various rewards are listed for those who overcome, in Revelation 2-3, for example! Privileges, authority, and so on, too many to list here.
But you missed my question, somehow: How have I contradicted myself, for starters?
No, torture is really pejorative, but the rich man was in torment, specifically because in his life, he received his good things. Presumably now he is getting what he should have been getting by denying himself.
Here are my thoughts on purgatory, if you are interested, lots of Scripture, by the way! I agree that that my view is unusual, though.
Your example is quite different than my reasons, it is not a good analogy for what I said. “We are not omnipotent, we are not God” explains “we need help.”
I repeat this because it’s true! I even point out people applying this principle to what I say, in this thread. And nobody has demonstrated how what I say is untrue, instead they keep repeating their view, and I then try and address their view. But nobody actually has refuted my view, instead they give a flat denial, and then give a substitute.
Well, there is, people are being asked to treat the materialist’s argument as an argument like what people normally think they are doing themselves, where people consider that they are originating their argument, and they are not being moved around like a puppet.
Certainly, Henry Ford was not a car, I remarked to someone accusing me of being an essentialist.
A self-existent reason, is the answer that is the response that has been given by many. Which prevents an infinite regress.
Well, as I just mentioned in another reply, saying I’m speculating means I have a motive to speculate, such as wish-fulfillment, which someone accused me of here just recently. That would be pointing to a nonreasoning cause, as would saying I have an unthinking commitment to intelligent design, or that I’m stupid (someone did say that), and so on, I could present many examples of people dismissing what I say by pointing to an unreasoning cause.
Sure, we have to pick authorities to believe, with care.
How can you know Caesar wrote the book which he claimed to write, though? On authority, someone told you he wrote it, and it’s not pseudopigraphy. How do you know contemporary sources were not lying, and that he existed? You trust them as reliable authorities. I can do this with almost every claim of you examining evidence, I can get eventually to some appeal to authority.
I do distinguish them, I look for evidence that the person making a statement is reliable, and has training in the area of interest, and so on.
Really? When I quote people, I intend that to be evidence that their statements should be given serious consideration, for the reasons such as those mentioned above.
I’m tempted to apply your standard to your own statements, and call them just evidence that you hold this or that opinion.
Well, let’s go to Wikipedia: “Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.”
“Obfuscation” would be attacking my character, people usually have an intent to obscure an issue when they do that, “contradicting myself” would be saying I am an oblivious person, who can’t see what he is doing, attacking a supposed attribute I have, and “wandering around at random” would be saying I am aimless, bereft of any good purpose, attacking my motives. And none of these statements address any actual arguments I have made.
I could point to many such examples directed at me in this forum…
Because it’s healthy for us to acknowledge we are not omniscient, and so on, we are not God, it’s sanity.
Your statement directly implies that the view that the causes of the delirious thoughts are illogical, is mistaken. And if they are not illogical, then they are logical.
I try and respond to your points, actually, and I don’t recall your response here. There is a lot of water under the bridge, here! And I can’t keep all the responses in my head.
A perfect machine might be unnecessarily complex, for example, in many applications, a three-wheel vehicle will do, or even a two-wheeler, four wheels may be more than is needed. But if you can afford it, buy a four-wheel ATM! So there may be tradeoffs we are unaware of in, say, making a particular flagellum or a cilium. Of which, may it be said, there are many types!
That’s a good reason, I hadn’t thought of that one!
Well, my view on that is a little different, I see three threads in scripture, eternal punishment, destruction of the wicked, and God “all in all”. Now how all these can be true, I don’t know, but there does seem to be good warrant in scripture for all three, and I don’t want to do what most people do, and pick one, and erase the others. I will additionally mention what I heard of one professor saying, “The people in Jesus’ day thought they had the first coming all figured out, and they were all wrong!” And they were.
One verse in reply, “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” (Rom.11:32) That’s one reason.
But I was applying that to the materialist view! So it applies to your view, not mine.
I could mention in passing Dawkins, in a debate with Lennox, presenting his prime objection to a Creator, asking “Who created your creator?” Lennox, in addition to replying that Christians believe in a self-existent, eternal God, turned the tables, and mentioned that Dawkins believed that the universe created him. So, Lennox asked, who created your creator? Still waiting for a response on that one…
They consider themselves real agents, though there is disagreement about metaphysics, such as a soul, or a mind outside the brain, and so on.
Are you saying now your thoughts are not generated ultimately just by the motions of atoms in your brain? Causes imply control. And I believe I mentioned to you to try telling a judge “my brain atoms did it!” and seeing how far that gets you.
He quite logically concludes there are snakes in the room, because he sees them. It’s logical to generally trust your perceptions. And the paranoid man is quite logical in not calling the police to help him, because of course, they are out to get him, too. Quite logical!
But you’re not pointing to my reasoning, or examining it at all! You’re pointing to the cause, I’m starting out confused, and because of that you dismiss what I say.
But as I mentioned, one arguably supernatural event undoes the whole materialist view.
“… if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.” (Chesterton)
Well, they did a bunch of tests, one of which was a treadmill test, where the doctor kept saying “Save that!” Evidently something unusual was being observed. So I think it unlikely that I was misdiagnosed, as mentioned, any time I wanted, I could check my pulse and detect extra beats. Now I can’t, and the doctor firmly announced “You do not have mitral valve prolapse.” And an appeal to unknown recovery paths is dubious at best. I agree that any miracle can be dismissed as a confluence of extraordinary, or even unknown, natural causes. But it seems you are willing to take any escape route, no matter how improbable. So restoring limbs can be explained in the same sort of way, “Salamanders do it!” for example.
That’s a weird kind of refutation, especially after saying more miracles would be more convincing. But in Jesus’ day, people got healed a lot! And they weren’t some kind of special people. I know I’m not, so I recommend asking, I do know God can heal.
Well, Richard Lorenzo just prayed for the higher power to reveal himself! He didn’t put an address on the envelope. Keith Green pointed out that in his examination of different religions, everyone seemed to say Jesus was a way, and Jesus said he was the way. So he said, I think I’ll go with trying Jesus first. Just a couple of pointers…
But I look for evidence for belief, while also expecting it needs to be given as well, by God. God can start up our faith, with evidence!
“If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:37-38)
Are you admitting that people here are applying the principle of rejecting reasoning if they perceive it’s cause by nonreasoning causes?
Well, indeed they are, see my response on this to John Harshman.
But all aspects do not have to agree, to have a valid analogy. The objects must be different, actually, to even be an analogy. And the claim was that evolution, and tornados, are mindless, unguided processes.
Another example of rejecting my reasoning, because it is viewed as coming from an unreasoning cause! Not to mention an ad hominem…
No, you automatically reject the reasoning of anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of their expertise in the subject of discussion. You do not use reason to do that.
Indeed they aren’t. This provides insight into your lack of reading comprehension.
The primary aspects do, and an analogy isn’t an argument anyway.
Those sorts of responses are just a second layer to the reasons why I stopped believing. This is basically saying I just gotta believe and keep talking to God as if he is real, even when what I am saying is that this doesn’t do it for me and I couldn’t keep engaging in these sorts of one-way communications where I forever tried to give myself rationalizations for why nothing ever came back.
Bro you just got to ask the right questions. You just got to believe. You have to keep looking for signs and message. You have to keep trying. You just got to be worthy, act in the right way, be patient, etc. etc.
They were all just stories I told myself, and the fact that all I got back when I explained this to other Christians was just more takes on new ways to tell myself stories was the final nail in the coffin.
My response to the problem as stated by Darwin is not a conclusion; in fact I accept its premise. I’m not arguing against that. Our reasoning, the product of evolution, is fallible. You keep hammering at “what is your response? when I have stated that I fully agree that there is nobody whose reasoning cannot be subject to error and thus not to taken merely on trust. If I agree, what more response can I make? You seem to think that should be disturbing, and I should come up with some argument to save rationality. It does not particularly bother me that rationality is fallible, and in fact, that is good to know.
So you allege that somebody else claims. Third-hand gotcha questions are not an effective argument.
It’s not the Far Side, it’s Sidney Harris.
No reason to suppose it would. Why do you think so? And if I recall the “other reasons” were to make us rely on God. Why would he want that?
How would I do that? It’s like proving a negative.
Ah, so the rewards are in this world, not the next? God gives you little presents when you suffer? That doesn’t accord with observations.
I’m supposing that “torment” is another word you have a different meaning for. Isn’t the rich man in a fire? How is that not torture? And why should one be tormented/tortured because in life he received good things? Does that mean that those who get rewarded for overcoming also go to hell?
The question wasn’t about purgatory but about Lewis’s idea of hell.
You have to remember that the original topic was God being asked for release from suffering that he himself has caused.
In fact it’s more or less an ad hominem argument: what X says is false because X is insane. It doesn’t even matter whether people do it, though in fact you’re the only one here who’s doing it. Everyone else, when accused, has explained that you have it backwards.
This whole “moved around like a puppet” think is yours and yours alone. It doesn’t describe anything that materialists think. And there’s no tacit request.
What is the self-existent reason that causes the reasoning process in your mind, specifically? If it’s God, doesn’t that make you a puppet?
Sure. Saying anything means you have a motive to say it. But saying you’re speculating doesn’t say what that motive is. Your logic is nonsensical.
Still backwards. People dismiss what you say because it’s wrong. One could go further to express an opinion on why you say wrong things, but what you’re claiming is the reverse of that. You are trying to claim that an ad hominem argument is valid, though apparently you eon’t think the ad hominem arguments you suppose people are making to you are not valid. Go figure.
But you don’t believe authorities. You believe some things some authorities say, but not others. How are you picking?
Sure, based on a host of other sources that say he did, often criticizing his prose style. What I trust is the repeated claim from independent, contemporary sources about matters of simple facts they could reasonably know.
And yet you reject your reliable sources when they say things you don’t like.
Yes, and the quotes are not evidence for that. They’re only evidence that the quoted people said, perhaps believed, that.
Not my standards. You are quoting claims, not arguments or evidence. Those are different things.
You have to read a little further into the paragraph, where the basic structure is explained. Briefly, person A has a bad quality, therefore his statements are untrue. That’s your thing. What other people are doing is saying that your statment is untrue, and that’s evidence for some bad quality of yours.
Only if you misunderstand what’s being said.
But I already acknowledge that I’m not omniscient, and so on, and that I’m not God. And I do it without depending on God. So what does depending on God have to do with that? And again, why does God want us to depend on him? What you say can’t be it.
Sorry, but it doesn’t. No idea where you got that.
I’ve done this several times. Please try to remember at least the core of the argument. Here we are again: natural selection isn’t random.
No, an unnecessarily complex machine wouldn’t be perfect. And then you appeal to mysterious, unknown reasons. Just more ways to avoid having to defend a claim.
What had you thought of? And why is it good for us not to be uppity?
So what about the rich man in the fire? And what about C.S. Lewis? Anyway, if you can’t know what to believe, why are you making claims?
That’s creepy. That’s tripping people so you can help them up again.
Ah, but that isn’t the materialist view. It’s your caricature. I was just showing that your caricature was silly. Still, it applies nicely to your idea, if you put the soul in the position of the puppeteer.
Ah, another likely apocryphal, third-hand gotcha. This isn’t helping you.
What is the soul, and how does it work? This is not something you have thought about, and you need to.
No, I’m not saying that. And causes don’t imply control, whatever you think that means. Causes are causes. My thoughts are the result of things happening in my brain. Sure. How is that different from your thoughts supposedly being the result of things happening in your soul? At least I can point to my brain, and we know that things happen in it, even something about what sorts of things. But you can do none of that for your supposed soul. Again, what in your soul causes your thoughts, and how does that work?
Doubtful that he does a lot of thinking about that. The process is likely just automatic. See a snake, yell “snake!” Calling that “reason” is stretching a point.
I always do. Just did, in fact. I showed your reasoning in this particular case to be wrong because it’s exactly backwards.
I did nothing of the sort. Backwards again. How can you not see this?
No, one unmistakably, irrefutably supernatural event would. “Arguably” is not close to sufficient. Chesterton isn’t helping you at all.
Find one and we’ll see.
More miracles from independent sources would. More miracles from you personally just makes your credibility lower.
How do you know? The only sources for these healings were written many years after the supposed fact by people who had not witnessed them. Anyway, we’re talking about the present. Most people who pray for healing are not healed, and yet it happens to you many times. Statistically unlikely.
You didn’t answer the second question, and I already knew what your answer to the first would be.
So I should sincerely address a prayer to “whoever might be there”? Can’t do that either. I think it’s necessary to start by half-believing, which I can’t do.
Then why doesn’t he? Why didn’t he give most of the world faith? (I presume faith in Krishna or Allah doesn’t count.)
No, they are not. Your response was just a repetition of your backwards claims. “We don’t believe you because you’re nuts” is ad hominem. “We think you’re nuts because you say absurd things” is not. See the difference?
Well, exactly! I’m not using reason, so you must be saying the cause of my thoughts is unreasoning.
Wow. Let’s leave it at that, I’ll continue to point out ad hominems, and you can try and explain why they are actually addressing what I say, instead of pointing to me and defects in me.
No, just the pertinent aspects in view have to agree, a car is not an elephant, but both can be ways of getting somewhere. And a valid analogy can indeed be used in an argument, that’s the main reason for making them, to illustrate and support a point.
People never make mistakes, because their premises are incorrect, or because they’ve misunderstood something they thought was evidence? Well, if we are not God, we are not omniscient, omnipotent, and so on, this would imply we have needs that God can supply. And “it’s more blessed to give than to receive”, parents know that, it’s good to give to your child, it’s in fact part of the relationship.
Well, yes, negatives can be proved, “A car is not an elephant”, lots of reasons can be given to support that.
The rewards mentioned here are in the next world, but there is refinement in this life, and also the ability to encourage people who also are going through difficulty. And knowing God, that is one result of suffering, too, it’s actually participating, fellowship in his suffering (Phil. 3:10). That accords with my experience, Hannah Smith tells of a woman she knew who had had a remarkably pain-free life, even giving birth wasn’t very difficult. And she had no clue about what to say to people in difficulty, nothing to say to people who were suffering.
“Torture” implies a malicious intent.
He received “his good things” is the text. So they were his, just not to be received totally at the time Lazarus was in need at his gate. So self-denial was required, resulting in purification, and if not now, then later, is my view, “everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49).
No, “he one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death” (Rev. 2:11). That implies that those who do not conquer, who do not overcome, will be.
Well, you can read his book “The Great Divorce” for his depiction of both.
Here is the full exchange:
So “God being asked for release from suffering that he himself has caused” is a different topic, I was talking about our abilities, or lack of them, not about release from suffering. The goalposts have moved, this was not the original topic, so I objected. And what you say is not a reason I believe God wants us to ask for help.
Actually, they don’t all say that. Some say they don’t focus on causes at all, when evaluating reasoning. And what I hold is that what X says is not to be taken seriously because X is insane, or delirious. Though there might actually be snakes in the room! But we don’t go look for them, once we know the man is delirious, and this is not an ad hominem argument. Of course we feel sorry for the man, and try and comfort or distract him, but not believing him is not some sort of attack on his character. And again I challenge you to find one psychiatrist who doesn’t keep in mind that his or her client’s complaints may be due to irrational causes!
Oh, what a refutation! Such solid evidence, and examples. But in your view, people are being moved around by the movement of atoms in their head, which is indeed aptly described by being puppets.
But you just used the puppet argument! So it’s not just me using it. And my view is that our reason comes from a self-existent reason, not that God causes our thoughts, which you seem to be asking if that’s my view.
But speculation is not using logic! And what makes no sense is saying I have a logical reason to engage in mere speculation. Unless someone points a gun at my head, and says, “Speculate!” Or something like that.
But they don’t examine my reasoning, when they say such things. They point to the supposed cause, and then reject what I say. This is not backwards.
I do believe some authorities, though I like to examine evidence for what they say, too, and I try and find people whom I have reason to believe are trustworthy, and have training and other qualifications in the relevant area.
But you still believe them on authority! We were just discussing how to pick good authorities, yes?
Sure, but I don’t pick statements just because I like them! And nobody believes in infallible human authorities, and every sensible person tries to evaluate further what they hear.
So why bother with picking good authorities, if all we can conclude from them is that somebody said or believed this or that?
So I’ll do what I said! This is only evidence that you believe these are not your standards. This is only evidence that you believe I am quoting claims, not arguments or evidence. This is only evidence that you believe these are different things.
I think I might keep this up, this is kind of fun. And it requires no effort at all.
You’re the one who’s getting this backwards, they don’t say I’m stupid because of this argument I made, or that I want to be important, because of this reasoning. Point me to one example of that! They say I’m stupid, or I want to be important, and so on, and that is why they can reject my statements. That’s ad hominem.
You claim to be an atheist, right? Your position is that there are no gods? So you have looked in every possible place, all at once, and you haven’t found any gods? This is a virtual claim of omniscience, as well as omnipresence, even.
Well, it’s good if you acknowledge being limited, I can go a step further, then, and say that self-sufficiency is bad, too. Even corporate self-sufficiency, together, we can do it. Well, sometimes, we can’t. So that would bring us to God, which is indeed, good for us, if God is good, and has resources we don’t, and that we need. And if coming to him and receiving develops a relationship, so this is more than about just getting stuff.
How does your statement not imply that, though? I need more than a mere assertion.
But I don’t say that it is. Now I’m really confused, I have no idea how this can be the core of your argument, if I don’t hold this view.
Well, a perfect machine might be required to be suitable in all possible environments. I expect there are tradeoffs in any design.
Well, I’ve given other reasons, and being uppity, well, if you’re looking down all the time, you’re not going to see something, or Someone who’s above you. C.S. Lewis’ point, on pride.
The rich man in the fire I believe is purgatory, so this isn’t part of the three threads I mentioned. And I disagree with C.S. Lewis, when he says (through a character in a book) that “the door of hell is locked on the inside.” I don’t see this in scripture, Jesus says he has those keys (Rev. 1:18). And I believe all three threads will be true, and accomplished, the statement of a professor I heard about comes to mind, “The people in Jesus’ day thought they had his first coming all figured out, and they were all wrong!” Well, they were, and God did what he had been telling us, all along, but in a very unexpected way.
Not if you bear suffering, though. People usually miss that, but it’s shown in the cross, that’s God, bearing suffering, showing mercy. And as has been discussed, there are other purposes for suffering, too.
But I seemed to have missed the part where you explain how my application is a misunderstanding. Could you start posting more context, so I don’t have to continually be trying to remember it, or keep scrolling back and forth to get it? But from what you say, I don’t believe the soul is like a puppeteer of my thoughts, I say the soul is the source of them.
Nobody claims to know the mechanics of thinking, exactly how that works, though this does not somehow disprove the conclusion, either yours or mine.
But saying “My thoughts are the result of things happening in my brain” clearly means they are caused, and your view also entails believing what happens in your brain is all motions of atoms there, correct? So I don’t see how you avoid the conclusion.
And pointing to your brain still leaves us clueless about the mechanics of thought, which neither you nor I claim to understand. So asking this question gets us nowhere. And I can point to evidence for the soul, I’ve done so.
But if you ask why he claims there are snakes, he will give you a reason, no doubt. And similarly with the man in paranoia, who doesn’t call the police when something bad happens to him, because of course, they are out to get him, too. So he is even more clearly doing reasoning, and being quite logical, given his premises.
How so? I must ask. I don’t see how you did.
Because all you mention is the cause! This is very straightforward.
But now you are requiring 100% proof! But no evidence of anything of importance is like that. Existence of God, no, you can’t get a mathematical proof of that. Similarly, the courts require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For that very reason.
If you insist on 100% proof all the time, you won’t believe much of importance. One more example, you won’t trust anyone, and you certainly won’t get married! I guess that’s two examples.
I can certainly point to salamanders as examples of limbs being regenerated! So someone might well point to this as evidence that this could possibly happen in humans, too. People do take refuge in remote possibilities, when they don’t like a conclusion. As in your explanation of my being healed from mitral valve prolapse, taking refuge in the unlikely chance that I was misdiagnosed. And what I could feel in extra beats, whenever I took my pulse, was some sort of misperception, which mysteriously cleared up along with getting a clean bill of health. Occam and his razor might help, here.
I do have medical records for another healing, though. So I think multiple documented events are credible, and don’t affect my credibility. And there are indeed reports of miracles from many sources! See Craig Keeners two-volume set on “Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts”, which also covers accounts of miracles happening today, for instance, or his smaller book entitled “Miracles Today”. Are you willing to investigate evidence for them? And C.S. Lewis’ book, “Miracles, a Preliminary Study” deals with a number of objections to them that people do make.
But children were healed, who probably could be consulted! And a claim is made that many were raised at the time of Jesus’ death, who “appeared to many”, which would be an odd claim to make, if this story was way after the fact, and could not be verified. This appears to be a claim of a verifiable event, as was Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to more than 500 after his resurrection, most of whom he said were still living (1 Cor. 15:6). Paul is saying you can check this out! Writing around AD 55, it seems, which is within the lifetimes of people who could have been at the resurrection, about AD 33. Not to mention Paul claiming to have seen Jesus! His eyewitness account is in his letters and in Acts, so this is not some account written via hearsay after many years.
I heard from someone that they had gotten through seven bouts with cancer, he didn’t mention miracles, so I expect this was through medical treatment. Seven! That seems unlikely, so it didn’t happen?
Well, fine, if there is a god, I would like to know! That seems eminently sensible. Or if you mean why should we start with a given god, such as the Christian one, I may have mentioned Keith Green, who surveyed religions when he was searching, and found that they all had good things to say about Jesus, and many of them said Jesus was a way. Only Jesus said he was the way. So this was kind of a no-brainer for him, he started with Jesus. Or I could mention the resurrection, there is nothing like this in any other religion, and there are several books, Lionel Luckhoo and Lee Strobel could be mentioned, who set out to disprove the resurrection, and would up believing it!
Well Richard Lorenzo did this, you might have seen me mention him, but “God if you’re real, please reveal yourself to me” doesn’t even require half-believing. Or starting with investigating the resurrection might be good, as I mentioned several atheists doing, setting out actually to disprove it! So again, no faith is required.
Yes, there certainly must wrong answers to the question of a real God, since religions don’t actually agree, they can’t all be true, as some will claim. And the Christian claim is that he does give evidence for himself to everyone: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Rom 1:18-20)
And this has been made plainer, as science advances, as in most people now believing the universe had a beginning, see Stephen Meyers’ book “The Return of the God Hypothesis” for more along these lines.
Right, that is my view, I’m not sure what the problem is, or how that is backwards.
This is spiralling way out from what I originally responded to, and it keeps moving further off. And you also show no sign of progress in understanding what anyone is saying. So rather than reply further, I’ll bow out. If we ever get back onto the topics that interest me, I’ll come back too.
But you didn’t leave it. You went on to reiterate your lack of understanding of the ad hominem fallacy. Do you typically contradict yourself in consecutive sentences?
Here’s an example of ad hominem:
Addressed to me. Moreover, it’s a twofer: your ad hominem fallacy was based on a blatant lie.
The former, not the latter. Analogies are explanatory devices. Your use of the Hoyle analogy tells me that you don’t understand that natural selection is nonrandom.
Yes. Sometimes even in the same sentence.
IIRC Lee was nicknamed ‘Dory’ after he was referring to dice probabilities at the start of a sentence, but finished it with a full house.