An Argument From Ignorance

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The Bible demands faith, however, and in this materialistic age, when man has probed so many secrets of life, it is popular to mock at a Bible faith.

CB, could you define what you mean by the word “faith” here? This is a word that has been bandied about and argued about on here, sometimes because people were using it in different ways with differe ...[text shortened]... e faith,” is not the same as mocking it. I saw nothing of mockery in LJ’s starting post.[/b]

I believe faith is simple believing. I believe it will rain, then it does not, but I prepared and fully expected the same.
I agree in questioning the bible, to understand. I only question the motives of some who only are looking to disqualify it.
I "believe" the bible is true, therefore I do not question it in this manner, I question my understanding of it.
There have been times when I had a certain biblical belief to then find I was wrong. The problem was in my understanding , not the bible.

BTW...the reason I C&P is to get repeated info out. I find it cumbersome to type out a lenghty response...this is my fault, lazy at times, sometimes just no time., sometimes to be more thorough and cover many questions at once. Thank God for modern technology, I think. I know someone will grab at that one...

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Please simply give the link next time instead of spamming the forum.

Thank you...advise noted....🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I believe faith is simple believing. I believe it will rain, then it does not, but I prepared and fully expected the same.
I agree in questioning the bible, to understand. I only question the motives of some who only are looking to disqualify it.
I "believe" the bible is true, therefore I do not question it in this manner, I question my understandi ...[text shortened]... tions at once. Thank God for modern technology, I think. I know someone will grab at that one...

there is just no way to read the OT without coming to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit didn't inspire the writers of it to write that God told Moses and Joshua or anybody else to kill everybody in the cities they conquered, and if you had paid attention to Christ's words, you would know this. Seek the word an it shall set you free.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I believe faith is simple believing. I believe it will rain, then it does not, but I prepared and fully expected the same.
I agree in questioning the bible, to understand. I only question the motives of some who only are looking to disqualify it.
I "believe" the bible is true, therefore I do not question it in this manner, I question my understandi ...[text shortened]... tions at once. Thank God for modern technology, I think. I know someone will grab at that one...

I believe faith is simple believing. I believe it will rain, then it does not, but I prepared and fully expected the same.

i am not sure i get what you are saying; but if i do understand your definition correctly, then your definition is so broad that it would make the term "faith" irrelevant. under this definition, almost any belief i hold is born out of faith. for example, the belief that i have hands would entail faith because there is, of course, a chance that i do not in fact have hands; but i believe that i have hands and i act under the premise that i have hands. however, if my belief that i have hands does entail faith, then i would say it is an entirely different sort of faith than the faith that characterizes your belief in God. so calling them both faith is a waste of time.

by the way, i did read through everything you posted. i gather from it that you are most interested in refuting Premise 2. most of the "evidence" for God your posts cite is teleological in nature. i must say that i just don't find it convincing at all; i certainly don't find the conclusion that God exists to be "common sense," as you put it. but you clearly do, and you are sort of miffed and vexed that there are so many people (and, in your estimation, a rising number of people) who clearly just don't get it. which would only lead me to my next question: if what you cite really is evidence for God, then why would God allow so many people to just not "get it" and see it as such.

also, i would add that some of the other stuff you posted seems to make the following argument:
1. man is really ignorant and insignificant, especially concerning and compared to the infinite.
2. man also think he understands how the world works, but he is fooling himself.
3. hence, God exists.
i must say that i just don't get this argument at all. if i have misquoted the argument, it is because you have refused to organize your thoughts in any sensible way. that is only one of many problems with copy and paste arguments.

of course, you also point to scripture as evidence for God. as i said before, i do not consider this meaningful discourse since you are begging the question.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I believe faith is simple believing. I believe it will rain, then it does not, but I prepared and fully expected the same.

Bad analogy of Paschal's Wager. Characteristic of a puerile mind.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i have been reading a debate between WL Craig (christian) and W Sinnott-Armstrong (strong atheist) in which the following argument is put forth by Sinnott-Armstrong. as far as i know, it is a very old argument:

1. If there were an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who could act in time, then we would have strong evidence for the existence of thi ...[text shortened]... such a God, but i am pretty sure that whatever evidence there is, it is not "strong evidence."

Why do you think Premise (1) would be necessarily true of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God?

Originally posted by LemonJello
yeah, good questions.

i think strong evidence could come in many forms (compelling argument, sensory data, etc). of course, strong evidence would be evidence which one finds compelling and which establishes sufficient likelihood of God's existence or at least makes the case for God persuasive. however, i am not sure it can be 'well-defined' in the ...[text shortened]... hat would still leave open the question of whether or not an all-good God would want to do that.

however, i think the spirit of the argument is that the evidence for God's existence could be much stronger than it is without negative ramifications (and would be stronger if he existed).

How can the evidence be stronger? And how do we know the ramifications would not be negative?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I believe faith is simple believing. I believe it will rain, then it does not, but I prepared and fully expected the same.

i am not sure i get what you are saying; but if i do understand your definition correctly, then your definition is so broad that it would make the term "faith" irrelevant. under this definition, almost any belief i hold i ...[text shortened]... s i said before, i do not consider this meaningful discourse since you are begging the question.[/b]

Wouldn't you think at an all knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God,
would be beyond our understanding by mere definition considering that none of us claim to even be close to it? (the fact that you asked this question proves that you are not all knowing) ha ha..

Sorry, but this is a queston that you cannot answer with your brain alone, your soul needs to be involved

When someone tells you that a plate on the stove is hot. You believe them (unless you have reason not to).That is belief. But when you touch the plate and burn your hand, then you know that it is hot.

Consider now your mate telling you about Jesus and telling you that He died for your sins and rose again so that you may share eternity with Him. You can chose to beleive him or not. But the only way of knowing that God exists for certain before you die is asking Him into your heart and asking Him to take control of your life. Then you will know like I know.

If you believe there is no God then this shouldn't be a problem because nothing will change if it is true. So what is stopping you?

This is faith: SINCERELY, ask God to reveal himself to you, and I garuantee that He will.

PS. excuse the spelling errors I'm not perfect.

Originally posted by mrnorter
... SINCERELY, ask God to reveal himself to you, and I garauntee that He will.

God as the ultimate flasher!

Long coat, scuzzy boots, hanging around little kiddies school yards like RHP...

Now there's an image of the caring deity that gave us WW2, The Bubonic Plague and Dolly The Sheep.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I believe faith is simple believing. I believe it will rain, then it does not, but I prepared and fully expected the same.

i am not sure i get what you are saying; but if i do understand your definition correctly, then your definition is so broad that it would make the term "faith" irrelevant. under this definition, almost any belief i hold i ...[text shortened]... s i said before, i do not consider this meaningful discourse since you are begging the question.[/b]

Please allow me to be more specific...
The way I understand Faith/Believing is this..
Faith/believing is only as good as the object of ones faith.
The biblical definition is

4102 pistis (pis'-tis);

from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher); abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:
KJV-- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

In the secular definition it is ...
To place trust or confidence in: bank on or (upon), count on...(The American Heritage® Reference Collection)

My favorite and most simple definition is..

Acts 27:25
25 "Therefore take heart, men, for I believe God that it will be just as it was told me.
(NKJ)

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I believe faith is simple believing. I believe it will rain, then it does not, but I prepared and fully expected the same.

i am not sure i get what you are saying; but if i do understand your definition correctly, then your definition is so broad that it would make the term "faith" irrelevant. under this definition, almost any belief i hold i ...[text shortened]... s i said before, i do not consider this meaningful discourse since you are begging the question.[/b]

Lemonjello...by the way, i did read through everything you posted. i gather from it that you are most interested in refuting Premise 2. most of the "evidence" for God your posts cite is teleological in nature. i must say that i just don't find it convincing at all; i certainly don't find the conclusion that God exists to be "common sense," as you put it. but you clearly do, and you are sort of miffed and vexed that there are so many people (and, in your estimation, a rising number of people) who clearly just don't get it. which would only lead me to my next question: if what you cite really is evidence for God, then why would God allow so many people to just not "get it" and see it as such.

The best evidence I have for God is prophecy....
Most people think prophecy is foretelling a future event. The bible also uses prophecy as forthtelling...but for evidence I would use foretelling..
The prophecy of the coming of the Messiah is first quoted in Genesis 3:15, which is about 4,000 years before the event( His birth). There are numerous prophecies throughout the Old Testament detailing His coming.,ie....the murdering of all male children by Herod, well before the event. There are numerous prophecies about many many things before they happened. I can look some more up if you are interested.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i have been reading a debate between WL Craig (christian) and W Sinnott-Armstrong (strong atheist) in which the following argument is put forth by Sinnott-Armstrong. as far as i know, it is a very old argument:

1. If there were an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who could act in time, then we would have strong evidence for the existence of thi ...[text shortened]... such a God, but i am pretty sure that whatever evidence there is, it is not "strong evidence."

I think Premise 1 is false.

If there was a OOMP God, then he would never need to respond to anything as his creation would be perfect so there would be hardly any evidence apart from the moment of creation which is the sole moment where it is logical for such a god to intervene. This would lead us back to the GAFE, IMO.

Perhaps my view needs an extra assumption: that god's preferences do not change over time. Or maybe not if we consider that omniscience must include knowledge over future changes of preferences.

Originally posted by Palynka
I think Premise 1 is false.

If there was a OOMP God, .

...we could call him the OOMP Papa.

I had a dream in which you had died. Palynka. I'm glad my dreams are not prophetic.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I had a dream in which you had died. Palynka. I'm glad my dreams are not prophetic.

Well, the end result sounds like a good prophecy to me. 😉

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why do you think Premise (1) would be necessarily true of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God?

premise 1 can be debated, which is why i posted it. i think it is pretty clear that an all-knowing and all-powerful God would know how to make the evidence of his existence stronger, and he would have the ability to make the evidence stronger. so i think the pertinent question is whether or not there is sufficient reason to believe that an all-good God would make the evidence stronger, or if there is sufficient reason to believe that he would refrain from making the evidence stronger. i have already posted (in the initial post) some reasons why i think an all-good God would want to make the evidence stronger, based on what i think are reasonable ethical standards. if you have reasons why you think making the evidence stronger would lead to negative ramfications (less good outcomes), then i would be interested in hearing them.