Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Underlying Presuppositions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
    The vast majority of people who live, and have lived on the planet, believed in gods. The fact that the minority do not is no different in theory (not fact) than the minority who believe in a flat earth, or that the sun revolves about the earth. You have not shown me a reason to eliminate a confident belief in the existence of the Creator.
    First, I have no idea if it is possible to do that, because I don't know if, like Seer, you accept "god is" as an a priori truth. If you do, then you are asking for something that, according to your worldview, I cannot provide.

    Second, that the majority of people believe something is not, in and of itself, proof of truth. We do use concensus in science as an indicator that something is true, but that is based on a methodology that provides a vehicle for testing hypotheses and reliably replicating those tests. Outside of such a methodology, "concensus" has a somewhat iffy record of accuracy. There are a lot of things "most people" used to believe that were eventually shown to be false.

    Third, although the vast majority of people in history have believed in gods, that percentage is shifting today - and they don't (and didn't) believe in the same conception of god(s). Indeed, the wide variety of such beliefs leads one to wonder if the reason there is so much variation in beliefs is because there is no binding, underlying, reality to unify them. When one looks at the history of religions all the way back to the dawn of man, one can see this pattern of religions appearing to fill a gap in human knowledge/understanding. Indeed, humanity is tens of thousands of years old, but the idea of a single god appears to be limited to the last 4,000 years of so, and didn't really take root until the last 2,000 years. It took hold and dominated for that time period. We have philosophy and theology well developed across those 2,000 years, but we do not really see widespread use of the scientific method to examine the reality around us until the enlightenment. So that gives the idea of gods tens of thousands of years to take root, a single god a few thousand years to take root, and a rigorous scientific look at our universe a few centuries to take root. And the tools we need to rigorously pursue that investigation have only been around for a few decades.

    For these reasons, and others I shared with Seer on a different thread, I do not subscribe to the notion that god(s) have a real existence outside of the human mind and human literature/art. Whther or not you find any of this adequate to raise questions, I have to leave to you. I have enough of a challenge keeping my own beliefs as accurate as possible.


    Edited to add: my previous post said, "if it were a priori true, we'd expect to see wider adoption than we do." At first glance, it would appear that my post above is in contradiction to this. Note however, that "a priori truths tend to be widely accepted" and "widely accepted beliefs is not an assurance of truth" are not in conflict. If you think about it, the reasoning is, I believe, sound.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-08-2018, 09:19 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      First, I have no idea if it is possible to do that, because I don't know if, like Seer, you accept "god is" as an a priori truth. If you do, then you are asking for something that, according to your worldview, I cannot provide.
      You asked for comments and other folks presuppositions. What in the world have I asked you to provide.

      Second, that the majority of people believe something is not, in and of itself, proof of truth.
      Have I claimed proof of truth?

      We do use concensus in science as an indicator that something is true, but that is based on a methodology that provides a vehicle for testing hypotheses and reliably replicating those tests. Outside of such a methodology, "concensus" has a somewhat iffy record of accuracy. There are a lot of things "most people" used to believe that were eventually shown to be false.
      Yes, and I am a fan of science. However you are straying into philosophy where I am not willing or qualified to go.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        You asked for comments and other folks presuppositions. What in the world have I asked you to provide.
        I'm not sure what this has to do with the comment you were responding to...

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        Have I claimed proof of truth?
        Your statement was that most people have and do believe in a god or gods, and aligned those who do not with those who believe in a flat earth. The implication seemed to be that those who believe in gods are most likely correct, and those who do not are in denial of obvious evidence (which is what flat-earthers do). If that was not your implication, then I missed your point.

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        Yes, and I am a fan of science. However you are straying into philosophy where I am not willing or qualified to go.
        I am? It's not clear to me how that statement was "philosophical" in nature. I observed that science provides a methodology for testing hypotheses, which gives consensus a stronger edge. Statements about the existence or non-existence of god, which do not lend themselves to scientific exploration, lack this tool. As a result, we cannot rely on consensus as an indicator of truth, and there is little consensus beyond "believe in god(s)." The specific nature of this/these god(s) is all over the map. So you seem to be leaning on a consensus that is tenuous at best, and is not a good indicator of "truth." I'm not sure why anyone would use this approach to claim "theism" has a stronger claim than "atheism," and it seemed to me you were asking about the relative strength of these two claims.

        Did I miss something?
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-08-2018, 09:40 PM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          As far as I can tell, typically when people are referring to presuppositional belief in God's existence, they actually do mean a belief that wasn't arrived at. So, for instance, Alvin Plantinga argues that some people may have a properly basic belief that God exists that does not rely on deductive reasoning. He further argues that this sort of belief may be rational, warranted and justified. This would be a presuppositional view of God. I think Plantinga's work on this subject is fascinating, and agree with WL Craig that it's a great counter to evidentialism. However, I think it has limited application in evangelism if your purpose is to get others to believe in the God you believe in. Furthermore, those who practice presuppositional apologetics typically avoid Classical apologetics (and don't seem to know Plantinga), and act as though all they need to do is throw Bible verses at a skeptic, and that somehow, through some sort of arcane mysticism, the skeptic will read the right combination of words, and something will just click in their head; Will make them want to accept the Holy Spirit. In my experience, that almost never ever happens in real life unless the individual in question already accepts some of evangelist's presuppositions. There's a few people on this forum who use this tact all the time, and it backfires on them just about every time.
          I think this may be a distinction between evangelism and apologetics. And I frankly think your tone disrespects the inherently divine and supernatural nature of Scripture, and the reality of the Holy Spirit. I do not deny there is some value to apologetics, but as far as genuine conversions, I think it is probably overrated.

          For those called to apologetics, hooray, have at it. For the other 99.75%, discuss Scripture with those willing to politely engage, until they either convert, or it comes time to shake the dust off your (our) feet and leave them to their fate.
          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

          Beige Federalist.

          Nationalist Christian.

          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

          Justice for Matthew Perna!

          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            I think this may be a distinction between evangelism and apologetics. And I frankly think your tone disrespects the inherently divine and supernatural nature of Scripture, and the reality of the Holy Spirit. I do not deny there is some value to apologetics, but as far as genuine conversions, I think it is probably overrated.

            For those called to apologetics, hooray, have at it. For the other 99.75%, discuss Scripture with those willing to politely engage, until they either convert, or it comes time to shake the dust off your (our) feet and leave them to their fate.
            Apologetics is a tool of evangelism. They're not two separate things. The word "apologia" comes from 1 Peter 3:15 where we are to give an apologian, a defense, for those who ask us about the hope within us. I have no idea what you mean about my tone disrespecting "the inherently divine and supernatural nature of Scripture, and the reality of the Holy Spirit". I simply recognize that reciting Bible verses to someone who not only doesn't believe in Jesus, but who doesn't even believe in God, isn't likely to be very convincing. Reciting scripture to an unbeliever isn't magic. We're not weaving spells when we invoke Bible verses. So many people have been turned off of Christianity for so long because they've thought it to be based on blind and unreasonable faith, and they got that idea from the church who could only answer them with pithy sayings like "God acts in mysterious ways". Christianity for so many people, and even so many Christians, just seems not to have any answers. And that's pathetic, because the church has had a long long history of thinkers, and philosophers, and theologians and apologists. I don't know about your faith, but my faith is rich in reason, logic, spirituality and practicality. It's multidimensional, and answers hard questions. I believe God gave me a brain to think and a heart to love. I don't believe that apologetics is a replacement for the work of the Holy Spirit, far from it, I believe the purpose of apologetics is to offer people compelling arguments and evidence to move people to a place where they are responsive to the calling of the Holy Spirit in their own lives. And it's from there that scripture can have its greatest impact.

            You know, finding out about apologetics relatively late in my Christian walk, and finding how powerful its impact on so many lives, it's so strange to me to come across so many Christians who seem so hostile to the very thought of it, or say the sort of things that you say...that it's overrated. I really don't get it. Overrated? Really? I wish it were overrated. Most Christians I know when they hear the word "apologetics" think that it means you ought to apologize for being a Christian. No, apologetics is not overrated. In the modern church they're highly underrated. We live in a church culture steeped in anti-intellectualism, and suspicion of talk about reason + faith, and we can't afford to be afraid to think in an age where information can be had in a blink of an eye.

            I'm curious though...why post on a theology forum where the two main things that take center stage in most discussions is politics and apologetics if you think apologetics is overrated?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Apologetics is a tool of evangelism. They're not two separate things. The word "apologia" comes from 1 Peter 3:15 where we are to give an apologian, a defense, for those who ask us about the hope within us. I have no idea what you mean about my tone disrespecting "the inherently divine and supernatural nature of Scripture, and the reality of the Holy Spirit". I simply recognize that reciting Bible verses to someone who not only doesn't believe in Jesus, but who doesn't even believe in God, isn't likely to be very convincing. Reciting scripture to an unbeliever isn't magic. We're not weaving spells when we invoke Bible verses. So many people have been turned off of Christianity for so long because they've thought it to be based on blind and unreasonable faith, and they got that idea from the church who could only answer them with pithy sayings like "God acts in mysterious ways". Christianity for so many people, and even so many Christians, just seems not to have any answers. And that's pathetic, because the church has had a long long history of thinkers, and philosophers, and theologians and apologists. I don't know about your faith, but my faith is rich in reason, logic, spirituality and practicality. It's multidimensional, and answers hard questions. I believe God gave me a brain to think and a heart to love. I don't believe that apologetics is a replacement for the work of the Holy Spirit, far from it, I believe the purpose of apologetics is to offer people compelling arguments and evidence to move people to a place where they are responsive to the calling of the Holy Spirit in their own lives. And it's from there that scripture can have its greatest impact.

              You know, finding out about apologetics relatively late in my Christian walk, and finding how powerful its impact on so many lives, it's so strange to me to come across so many Christians who seem so hostile to the very thought of it, or say the sort of things that you say...that it's overrated. I really don't get it. Overrated? Really? I wish it were overrated. Most Christians I know when they hear the word "apologetics" think that it means you ought to apologize for being a Christian. No, apologetics is not overrated. In the modern church they're highly underrated. We live in a church culture steeped in anti-intellectualism, and suspicion of talk about reason + faith, and we can't afford to be afraid to think in an age where information can be had in a blink of an eye.

              I'm curious though...why post on a theology forum where the two main things that take center stage in most discussions is politics and apologetics if you think apologetics is overrated?
              Well said.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Then since this is a belief held without a need for evidence - it is "foundational truth" for you, then there is essentially no basis for discussion about it. It would be as if you asked me to prove to you that the law of identity is true. For me - the bible is a collection of books written by men, and someone would need to provide evidence that it is divinely inspired and to be trusted as a source of "truth." Because you believe this is true a priori - you cannot answer that question. A priori truths can only be asserted - not defended. Indeed, the question itself would make no sense to you.

                No, we all get a priori beliefs. But we disagree on what those ARE. I do not believe "the bible is the word of god" is an a priori truth. Indeed, there is nothing about that statement that seems a priori to me. You might as well say "the geometric theorem of congruent triangles is a priori true." That theorem is derived from other principles that are apriori - but it is not itself a priori. We might both agree that the fundamental principles of mathematics and logic are a priori truths, but we disagree that the bible being the word of god or the very existence of god are one of them.
                Right, like I said you get your a priori truths, but I don't get mine. Nice... But my assumption answers some very fundamental questions: Why there is something rather than nothing, why do we live in an intelligible universe where the laws of logic are immutable and universal, why is there life rather than no life, why is there consciousness, why a universal moral sense, why precise laws of physics, why we can generally trust our senses, etc... Your presuppositions do not answer any of the why questions.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Apologetics is a tool of evangelism. They're not two separate things. The word "apologia" comes from 1 Peter 3:15 where we are to give an apologian, a defense, for those who ask us about the hope within us. I have no idea what you mean about my tone disrespecting "the inherently divine and supernatural nature of Scripture, and the reality of the Holy Spirit". I simply recognize that reciting Bible verses to someone who not only doesn't believe in Jesus, but who doesn't even believe in God, isn't likely to be very convincing...
                  And what would Peter have told them about the hope that was within them? About the life and resurrection of Christ? I just don't see how any argument could be more convincing than Scripture as applied to a man's heart by the work of the Holy Ghost. Without the work of the Spirit no argument will bridge that gap, with the Spirit even the most mundane reciting of Scripture can be enough. I know you will not like this Adrift, but in my life I have used a number of Apologetic arguments, though imperfectly, and often on these boards, but the older I get the more I lean towards Fideism... Perhaps I'm just getting lazy...
                  Last edited by seer; 02-09-2018, 06:58 AM.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    And what would Peter have told them about the hope that was within them? About the life and resurrection of Christ? I just don't see how any argument could be more convincing than Scripture as applied to a man's heart by the work of the Holy Ghost. Without the work of the Spirit no argument will bridge that gap, with the Spirit even the most mundane reciting of Scripture can be enough. I know you will not like this Adrift, but in my life I have used a number of Apologetic arguments, though imperfectly, and often on these boards, but the older I get the more I lean towards Fideism... Perhaps I'm just getting lazy...
                    Well, seeing as 1st Peter's audience were Gentiles, he probably had to tell them something about his God, and why his God was preferable to and more powerful than their gods. That would be an apologia. He probably offered his testimony (and the testimony of others) of Jesus' miracles and his resurrection...again, an apologia. He might even explain to them how the prophets of his religion (including Jesus) spoke about things that were being revealed in relatively current events...that's an apologia. What he likely did not do was just open his Bible (there was no New Testament scripture at the time, or if there was, it was only just being circulated), and expect them to simply understand what it was talking about or how it was applicable to non-Jews. Now, Peter (or one of his disciples) may not have had to sit down with them and explain to them the moral argument, or Kalam's cosmological argument, or teleological arguments, or what have you (though, like Paul, he may have made reference and parallels to Greek writers and philosophical concepts they were familiar with), but that doesn't mean that apologetics wasn't being done. Not every argument is necessary or profitable in every circumstance.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Well, seeing as 1st Peter's audience were Gentiles, he probably had to tell them something about his God, and why his God was preferable to and more powerful than their gods. That would be an apologia. He probably offered his testimony (and the testimony of others) of Jesus' miracles and his resurrection...again, an apologia. He might even explain to them how the prophets of his religion (including Jesus) spoke about things that were being revealed in relatively current events...that's an apologia. What he likely did not do was just open his Bible (there was no New Testament scripture at the time, or if there was, it was only just being circulated), and expect them to simply understand what it was talking about or how it was applicable to non-Jews. Now, Peter (or one of his disciples) may not have had to sit down with them and explain to them the moral argument, or Kalam's cosmological argument, or teleological arguments, or what have you (though, like Paul, he may have made reference and parallels to Greek writers and philosophical concepts they were familiar with), but that doesn't mean that apologetics wasn't being done. Not every argument is necessary or profitable in every circumstance.
                      And probably most of what he said was gleaned from Scripture, perhaps tweaked for a particular audience.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        And probably most of what he said was gleaned from Scripture, perhaps tweaked for a particular audience.
                        I'm certain a lot of it was, but he still had to make that palatable to an audience completely alien and removed from it. What does the Old Testament (a series of books written specifically for Jews living in the Promised Land), and the God of the Jews have to do with Gentile pagans living in Asia Minor? That's quite the bridge to gap. Bridging that gap would have required quite the defense...an apologia. He didn't just read the Old Testament to them and expect them to grasp its importance. He would have had to provide all sorts of arguments, and evidence that helped them not only understand how a completely foreign religious text might be relevant to them, but that was also reasonable to them...that provided them a reason to trust and believe what was being preached to them. That's apologetics.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          I'm certain a lot of it was, but he still had to make that palatable to an audience completely alien and removed from it. What does the Old Testament (a series of books written specifically for Jews living in the Promised Land), and the God of the Jews have to do with Gentile pagans living in Asia Minor? That's quite the bridge to gap. Bridging that gap would have required quite the defense...an apologia. He didn't just read the Old Testament to them and expect them to grasp its importance. He would have had to provide all sorts of arguments, and evidence that helped them not only understand how a completely foreign religious text might be relevant to them, but that was also reasonable to them...that provided them a reason to trust and believe what was being preached to them. That's apologetics.
                          Adrift, what do you think Paul means by this: But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            Again, not to rag on you seer, but I don't think that's a strong line of attack. You're not attacking his pressuppositions, you're asking him for something neither he nor anyone can give you. Solipsism, that is the complete denial of knowledge of the external reality (or complete despair of obtaining it), is every bit as self-consistent as theism. Its unliveable, and no one holds to it, but its perfectly self-consistent. Therefore presuppositional apologetics, the good parts, can't really interact with that. There's nothing to challenge such a person on.

                            All Carped has to say to you is that he believes that there's an external reality, and he can experience it using his senses. No more need be said. He doesn't have to justify this belief, as its foundational to his worldview.

                            And the challenges in presuppositional apologetics aren't merely of the form "what's your basis for X", its more like "given what you believe you should reject X". C.S Lewis did this when he questioned whether a materialist worldview, with its mechanistic and completely deterministic physics would result in us not being able to reliably know the truth. Plantinga's argument follows this line as well. In fact just about any presuppositional line of argument attacks exactly the ability to reason, and what needs to be true for this to be the case.

                            Plantinga's argument is quite a powerful version. I highly recommend it, if you wanna pursue this line of argumentation.
                            Actually, I think there is one attack that could be used on Solipsism from a presuppositional angle. If you can't even live as if your views are true, then why should we expect them to actually be true? The fact that it is unlivable, and no one holds to it ought to be a defeater for it as is anyway.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Right, like I said you get your a priori truths, but I don't get mine. Nice...
                              Since that is manifestly NOT what I said, I have no further response.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But my assumption answers some very fundamental questions: Why there is something rather than nothing, why do we live in an intelligible universe where the laws of logic are immutable and universal, why is there life rather than no life, why is there consciousness, why a universal moral sense, why precise laws of physics, why we can generally trust our senses, etc... Your presuppositions do not answer any of the why questions.
                              As I have noted before, answering "why" and "how" are two of the primary drivers for religions from the dawn of humanity. Earliest man could not answer what made lightning, so we had gods of lightning. They could not answer what made things grow, so we had gods of the harvest/growing. They could not fathom what made the sun rise and set, so we had the sun god. Throughout time, gaps in human knowledge have been continually filled with "god did it." I do not see your list as any different from that history. Clearly, if you posit an omnicient/omnipotent mind, it essentially answers ALL of the questions for which we do not currently have answers.

                              I do not feel a need to replace "I don't know" with "god did it." I am OK with, "we don't know the answer to that yet." Realizing that "I don't know" was an acceptable (and honest) position to take was a major step in my movement from theism to atheism. That does not mean that you are being "dishonest" by taking the "god did it" position. It simply means I eventually became disatisfied with restorting to "god did it" and "it's a mystery" and "who can know the mind of god?" or "who cannot possibly understand" as my go-to responses when I found myself trying to respond to something for which I actually had no response.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Much as I love C.S. Lewis, and the rest of his Inkling brethern, this would be my reply to C.S. Lewis, to what I beleive is his flaw in this quote:

                                “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”


                                Dear Mr. Lewis:

                                We can come to trust our own thinking to be true in a fairly simple way: that it can reliably be counted on to anticipate outcomes. If the mind were truly random, and disconnected from reality, then any decision I make would be entirely random, and the probability that I would chose X and die would be equal to the probability that I choose X and live. Few individuals would survive beyond a few moments in such a universe. The luckiest might survive a few hours, perhaps as much as a day. But this is not what we find. Indeed, we find that our ability to observe the universe around us, and to make choices that enhance our ability to survive, is fairly consistent. We can survive decades based on nothing more than our senses and our ability to reason.

                                This can only happen as consistently as it does if a) our senses can be (mostly) trusted, and b) our ability to reason on that information can likewise be trusted. I do not need a god for that. Evolution is enough to weed out those who do not have senses/thought connected to reality.
                                And since it is not random and can be relied upon, this is evidence that God exists.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X