Why Is Your Faith Not Arbitrary?

[dairygirl4u2c]

another interesting thread.

intrested to see some attacks on my theology. esp from the obviouslyists. but also for those who think it's pretty appparent God's existance can be proven. or from those who just want to bicker some half thoughts.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1399084' date='Oct 7 2007, 06:37 PM']This guy isn't nearly as smart as he sounds. He's made a respectable thrust toward a position of agnosticism, but atheism is something he holds dogmatically and blindly without any evidence. We can have an intelligent conversation about whether there is or is not evidence that God exists. But that will only get us to agnosticism. For atheism, he has to conclusively prove that God does not exist, and at least in this argument he hasn't even tried.[/quote]


athiesm generally, as i understand, is less about their evidence that god does or does not exist, but more about the lack of one or the other. part of your faith certainly includes that you have seen no conclusive evidence that proves to you that God does not exist, where in athiesm it is more that they have not seen any to prove that god does exist.

[dairygirl4u2c]

is the name jesus lol meant to be jesus laughs out loud?

also, one nuance. miracles that can be done over and over would be very good proof in itself. you could argue that miracles are order, but, still, why would something complex ie existance require something even more complex, ie God? but, to me, if you're consistently performing miracles, you have very good proof and to dissent would be the more unreasonable position.

but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. and the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?
so, i think the most reasonable position is that it's not definitive proof, just circumstantial.

Edited November 6, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

is the name jesus lol meant to be jesus laughs out loud?

also, one nuance. miracles that can be done over and over would be very good proof in itself. you could argue that miracles are order, but, still, why would something complex ie existance require something even more complex, ie God? but, to me, if you're consistently performing miracles, you have very good proof and to dissent would be the more unreasonable position.

but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. and the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?
so, i think the most reasonable position is that it's not definitive proof, just circumstantial.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415177' date='Nov 5 2007, 09:23 PM']is the name jesus lol meant to be jesus laughs out loud?[/quote]


thats one way to look at it. or i am jesus. just kidding.

you raise some good points, though i dont think order as such is a miracle. especially as it is really a series of checks and balances, and it shifts daily. i think of major coincidences and acts that cannot be explained by science as miracles. on the other hand, god wouldnt need to break the laws he set down, in order to affect something.
the whole point of christianity is that it cannot really be proved. which is why it is called faith.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]why would something complex ie existance require something even more complex, ie God?[/quote]

God is not more complex. God has no parts. God is not a thing like a physical universe which requires a first cause.

Explain to me why Ockham's razor is correct? Why in a random universe is the simplest answer true? Ockham’s razor is not science and it is not a conclusive principle. It relies on hindsight bias after the facts are known.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not saying it's correct. i'm merely saying that it's often right as a rule of thumb. and if you apply it here, then God is just extra fluff that is not needed.

you say God is not more complex. if God encompasses us, then anything beyond us is by definition more complex.

God is not an unreasonable belief given order and other arguments, but he's not provable as logical fact.

reducing God to "first cause" first of all isn't saying much of anything. the first cause can just occur by chance. is that then God? if you define God as first cause though, whatever the case, then that's not more complex than existance, but it's included as part of it and you could legit say that and it not be more complex. but why do we even call that first casue God if it's next to proving nothing? proving God as something more substantial, to make it meaningful, would require that he be more complex than existance.

plus we don't know that there was a first cause. but i'm beginning to repeat myself from all my last posts. we should prbably focus on whether God is more complex or not.

Edited November 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[jeffpugh]

Why would you use an inaccurate yard stick to measure, silly? Explain why you insist on Ockham's razor.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1405479' date='Oct 19 2007, 06:49 PM']Dude, that is really impressive. Seriously I had never even thought of it that way before....Wow. R u like a priest or something? where did you get that from?[/quote]

I'm not a priest, just an ordinary laywoman and armchair theologian. The phrase 'God is being itself' comes from the writing of St Thomas Aquinas. It's a phrase that I always like to unpack in dialogue with atheists, as they take their definition of God far too much for granted.

[cmotherofpirl]

Most atheists insists God doesn't exist, and they are reallly annoyed at Him for just that reason.

[dairygirl4u2c]

to reiterate a point i made earlier.
if you want to define as existance then i have no problem with that. just remember that it's proving next to nothing substantial. it's often just fluff so that theists can feel they've proven God.
an i still stand by teh argumetn that the first cause cannot be proven, as i argued earlier and have not had substantially addressed yet.
and, okhams razor isn't necessarily true in this case, i'm just saying it's usually teh right principle to apply so might be with the God argument.

also, remember. if i were to argue for Gods existance, which i would do seeing as i believe in God, i'd use all the arguments you guys are making. my oinly point is the arguments would be circumstnatial and not definitive.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you say God is not more complex. unless God encompasses us, then anything beyond us is by definition more complex. it's extra.