An Argument for the existence of God.

I have no doubt that you will choose to accept as evidence only that which supports your preconceived notions, as you seem only interested in 'affirming the consequent'. Of course, you're not the only person on this forum reading these posts.

Are you saying that you don't believe that there is an "objective reality"? If that's the case, how do you justify belief in a deity?

Sure, data (or information) can come from a variety of sources. Are you saying that all statements are equally true? If so, how do you justify belief in a deity?

Yup, personal experience can be considered data. Of course, how that personal experience is interpreted is entirely subjective. For example, one person might have a "religious experience" and attribute it to the Judeo-Christian "God", another person having the exact same experience could attribute it to another deity, a third person having the exact same experience could simply consider it "a moment of clarity"... Objectivity is relevant.

BTW, Wikipedia entries can be written by anyone, and may or may not relate to topics the writer has any actual experience or knowledge of. Just FYI.

 

Traveling the same path that you are traversing.

Did I say that I held such a belief? My objective is to point out that the "objective reality", as stated by scientists, is a presumption at best.

Where is it stated that there is a requirement for justification of a belief? If there is such a requirement, then perhaps the scientific community needs to start justifying their beliefs prior to spending tax payer dollars. Now that was IMHO a question that really did not need to be asked. Every statement made by all the people of the world will have a level of truth to the individual making the statement (even in the event of an intentional lie the speaker or writer can justify the lie, thus forming a belief that the lie is true ... at least in his/her mind).

Not only is 'Objectivity' relevant, but Objectivity is also determined by the individual making the observation. This is clearly pointed out in this forum where I have seen the question asking 'what is your world view?' Thus the subjective nature of 'objectivity'.

Really. That sounds like something which I previously pointed out, yet my saying the same thing in the past had no effect in stopping non-theists from utilizing that same information source. So the next time you see one who is a declared non-theist (of whatever variety) make sure you remind them/him/her of the same thing.

 

Which would include belief in any deity, much less any specific deity. Given the topic of the thread, it seems your position is one that denies any objective existence of anything, much less a "God".

Are you suggesting that beliefs based on nothing are as valid as beliefs that are justified?

Dude, that would make it subjective, not objective.

I haven't seen that yet, but will do so if/when I do.
The concept that you claim to have previously disparaged the use of Wikipedia as a source, but then choose to use it yourself as a source when if suits your purpose, reeks of hypocrisy. I'm not surprised in the least.

 

A wrong interpretation on your part. On a daily basis, I deal with scientific information while performing tasks for myself and for neighbors and friends. It is reasonable then to assume that I do not "deny any objective existence of anything....". I admit that I have not looked out the window and seen anything that would cause me to exclaim "Look there is God... I knew He was here."

Do you really believe that there is something that can be named "nothing"?

Absolutely. And that is my point entirely. Name one thing in what you might call the 'objective world' or 'objective reality' and when you have, you have made it subjective.

Well, looks like I am going to have to educate you on what 'hypocrisy' is. Definition time.
"
[h=2]hy·poc·ri·sy[/h] (hĭ-pŏk′rĭ-s&#275n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness."

Now that you see the definition of 'hypocrisy' and since you are declaring that I am practicing 'hypocrisy' then it is time for you to show PROOF of claim. Show proof that I do not possess 'beliefs, feelings, or virtues' regarding the subject of 'wikipedia'. Have fun proving that 'beliefs' part or the 'feelings' part of the definition.

 

So you attack others for using scientific information, while apparently objecting to the acceptance of "objective existence", yet you utilize this same method "on a daily basis"... Cognitive dissonance much?

If it was "something", it wouldn't be "nothing". Interesting way of dodging the question...

Subjective and objective are not mutually exclusive. Something does not cease to be objective when you subjectively identify it. However, not every subjective observation is also objective.

We've done this dance before, and you ended up playing all kinds of semantic word games before eventually claiming that there was no rule against being a hypocrite...

Are you denying that you professed a belief that Wikipedia is not suitable as a source? Are you denying that you used that source?
If you use a source, it appears you believe it is suitable... That directly contradicts your own statement that you do not believe is suitable... Hypocrisy.

 

I also post links to Atheist websites... that does not mean that I agree with Atheist philosophy. I use them only to point out the obvious flaws that others make in their assertions. Such as yours above in a deliberate attempt to not show PROOF of your claim that I practice hypocrisy. Where are you showing a lack of feelings, beliefs or virtues. Notice the requirement of the definition.... "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." You have failed miserably.

 

That's odd, I didn't realize Wikipedia was an "Atheist website"...
and it seems you were using it as a source in support of your position.

I clearly demonstrated that you professed a belief that Wikipedia is not a valid source. I also demonstrated that your actions (ie: using Wikipedia as a source) contradict your professed belief that it is not a valid source. That is proof of hypocrisy, so please expand on how I made "a deliberate attempt to not show PROOF".

 

That is not a proof of my feelings, beliefs, or virtues pertaining to wikipedia. That is only a proof of what I have used as a source of information.

 

A variant on Anselm, yes?

 

So when you asserted that you've told atheists that Wikipedia is not a valid source, you expressing a belief about the validity of Wikipedia as a source? <Rule 3>

 

In your first statement regarding my use of wikipedia and my announcement that I had also previously commented about wikipedia, you had used specifically the term 'disparaged' as in "disparaged the use of". Now you are saying that I said the information on wikipedia was invalid. Please show that posting wherein it was my profession that wikipedia was "invalid". <Off-topic>

 

noun
1.
a human being, whether an adult or child:
The table seats four persons.
2.
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3.
an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified (used in combination):
I've never been a cat person.
4.
Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
5.
Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
6.
the actual self or individual personality of a human being:
You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
7.
the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn:

Which of those definitions makes God a person?
#5, IMO, would be the only possibility.
But we don't know if God is self conscious or rational.

 

And, according to the 'Bible', man was made in the image of God.... Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that we don't know if man is self conscious or rational.

 

I never mentioned any claim you made about the information on Wikipedia. I pointed out that you have claimed Wikipedia is invalid as a source (invalid being the opposite of "valid"). Are you now saying that you believe it is valid to use Wikipedia as a source?

<Off-topic>

 

Conflicting statements. You first say that you "never mentioned any claim you made about the information on Wikipedia." Then you said that You "pointed out that you have claimed Wikipedia is invalid as a source (invalid being the opposite of "valid")" Now asking the question "a source" of what,,,,, a source of information.

 

Are you now claiming that Wikipedia is a valid source? You previously claimed that it wasn't (and have told others not to use it)...
Surely you remember making that claim, right after citing Wikipedia as a source...