Why are theists so reluctant to examine their beliefs? Do you care whether your beliefs are true?

[AndrésC64]

It just strikes me as very odd that people can be so absolutely convinced of something that is absolutely the most crucial belief in their lives, yet be afraid to actually examine/question it. Wouldn't you want to know whether your beliefs make sense, whether they fit with reality, whether they are logical?

I don't want to question my beliefs

I do question my beliefs

[RealMarek]

Westerners are taught to view history as a story of continuous progress, in which humanity reaches ever greater levels of power, knowledge, and moral superiority, with the rationalistic globalist (i. e., Western) elites having reached the most advanced state ever. However, I disagree completely. This is self-serving drivel foisted upon a propagandized population. My reading is that cultures are organic in nature and follow patterns of maturation that repeat every time a major culture is born, thrives, then inevitably declines.

All significant cultures to date have been born out of people who are close to the land in a specific location and possess an intense religious feeling. At this stage almost nobody will question the culture’s religion or religions. As the culture thrives, it makes advances in the arts, mathematics, and develops a sort of science. Urban centers rise and become the seat of intellectual activity that drives the culture. Eventually, the rise of intellect attempts to rationalize the culture’s underlying beliefs and ultimately, in the process of questioning, deconstructs them. With the rise of large, cosmopolitan cities, something akin to atheism grows among the cultural elite and those educated by them. In Greco-Roman culture, this was expressed in the form of Christianity. In Indian culture, Buddhism. In Western culture, atheism as we know it. This phenomenon is centered in the urban areas, so it is natural that the outlying hinterlands tend to retain a greater adherence to the original religion. The elite, drunk with power attained by the fruits and advances of the civilization, become rapacious and concentrate greater portions wealth to themselves and become contemptuous of the common people and the culture itself. Eventually, the common people rally behind a strong man to put the elites in check. At this point, the people turn back to the culture’s traditions, and religiousness flourishes again.

So actually, today many theists go through a phase of questioning their beliefs and many lose their faith. You might not think enough of them do, but there will never be a time during the West’s lifecycle when more of them do. However, this has much less to do with the personality of people who become atheists, or knowledge, or science, than it does with the fact that the West is in terminal decline. As this decline works toward its end, at which point the West will either collapse or ossify without further cultural advances unless acted upon by outside cultures or a new cultural revolution, religious belief will once again become unquestioned by the vast majority of people. It happened before. It will happen again.

[ManOnFire]

I would also like to add to your point about unbelief being more popular in more advanced and affluent centers that one reason for it is because with these types of comforts and even distractions, people feel that there is no need to believe. When you're content with your advancements, technology, and serving money, you typically will be lazy about having any kind of faith. It happened to governor Felix when the apostle Paul told him in order to gain eternal life he had to give up all his worldly things, and this deeply disturbed Felix to the point where he told Paul to leave him be for now. Felix had actually started getting curious about God and the things Paul taught, up until Paul told him that.

Part of me can understand how people of comfort or more "modern knowledge" could be less perceptive to faith, because naturally humans are weak and can be satisfied with these things. Even Jesus said "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

[RealMarek]

@ManOnFire That’s a good point. I think this is part of why we see a similar pattern of behavior with the rise and fall of every culture.

[RolandCuthbert]

How do you question "faith"? I mean, that's the whole point. If I were just to sit and look out at the world as an atheist, I would quickly come to the conclusion that human existence is not really worth the effort.

Because there is no factual or evidential argument that could lead one to having an optimistic view of the future. The only realistic conclusion that you could come to, is that our collective future is going to be nightmarish.

But I have hope. . . and that hope comes from faith. Because there is no way to logically explain being hopeful about the future.

[AndrésC64]

Just because you need to have a God in order to see hope for the future doesn't mean that everyone does. In fact I have greater hope for the future if everyone were to abandon their religions. Religions are inherently divisive. We would all be much more able to work together if we didn't have that divisiveness.

[RolandCuthbert]

Who said anything about everyone else?

You challenged me and other theists. I didn't create this question. Nor do I insult atheists because of their beliefs.

As for your opinion of religion, we have heard for hundreds of years about the evils of religion. As though, religion is why men is do evil. I don't buy it. People intent of bringing suffering to others will do it using religion, fake science, superstition, mutated logic. . . it doesn't matter.

It was fake science that brought us the silliness of race. And we still have folks believing it is common sense.

[AndrésC64]

And it was science that taught us that there is no such thing as faith. I love the way you theists always like to point out mistakes made by scientists and yet completely ignore when those mistakes are corrected by science.

[AndrésC64]

Science is self-correcting. Overturning the apple cart is the most sure way of making your mark in the field. Religion, on the other hand, simply goes along with what it's been told for thousands of years. When was the last time religion corrected something?

[RolandCuthbert]

? That doesn't make any rational sense. Faith exists. People have "faith". You may not believe that it is a valid belief to hold. But your opinion matters little. I don't sweat your beliefs. Or even your insults. Religions are not inherently divisive. People who want power and have a need to increase suffering are inherently divisive.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are confusing science with scientists. There are scientists who are just like religious folks, who have ulterior motives, political ambitions, etc. And they are susceptible to the same type of corruption religious folks are.

People are people. Whether they believe in science or not. Science does not make a person have integrity or honesty.

[AndrésC64]

Religion IS s inherently divisive. You are either part of my religion and you're doing good stuff, or you're not part of my religion and you're doing bad stuff. You either follow my religion and you get to go to heaven with me, or you don't follow my religion and you go to hell.

[AndrésC64]

But it's people like you that insist on pointing out mistakes made by science or scientists, yet you completely ignore the fact that those mistakes were corrected by science and scientists. They never get corrected by theists.

And to repeat my question: When was the last time religion corrected/changed anything?

[RolandCuthbert]

Nah it isn't. I would agree there people who are inherently divisive. I would agree that there exists folks who want nothing more than conflict and subjugation of folks they deem "different". Be it on the basis of religion, race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I don't have a problem with someone else's religion. Nor have I ever been told to discriminate or hate on that basis. What other people accept or preach is not my issue.

[RolandCuthbert]

And it is you who blame all of religion for the beliefs and actions of extremists. Those who literally rebel against the very teachings of their own faith.

I don't care about blaming anyone. But I refuse to believe that a person who is an atheist somehow approaches what we consider to be truth. In fact, an atheist can't be a seeker of truth, because he dismisses religion as a possible source.

That's why a significant number of scientists believe in God.

[AndrésC64]

In fact, a theist can't be a seeker of truth, because he believes he already has the truth.

I am willing to admit that I could be wrong, and that God could exist. Are you willing to do the same? Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong? Are you willing to admit that God may not really exist?

[AndrésC64]

And for the third time: When was the last time religion/theists changed or corrected anything? Because science does it all the time. Religion doesn't do it because it assumes that it is already the correct answer.

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, that doesn't make any sense. A theist would claim that God is truth. . . and getting to know God/Truth better is the goal. Science is not discarded in that search. You see, I am not you. I have no issues with Science. Knowledge is something we should all aspire to gain more of. That's why I make distinctions between Science and Scientists. . . and Atheism and Atheists. A Scientist isn't necessarily an Atheist and I know a great many or at least knew a great many who were very religious.

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, the statement makes nonsense. We have religious extremists who make false claims all the time. And they are confronted by those who use their faith to spread peace and end suffering. I can't claim I have done much of the latter.

But I am trying.

[AndrésC64]

How do you get to know something that you can't see, here, feel, touch, smell?

So is your belief in God based on science and facts, or faith? If you think it is anyway based on science, I'd love to hear your examples.

[AndrésC64]

So you're just going to keep dodging my question. Cool. Then I see no reason to continue this if you were going to just ignore what I have to say. Goodbye.

[RolandCuthbert]

Can you see your mind? Can you touch it? Can you smell it? Can you smell an idea? Can you touch a virtue or a principle? Again nothing you say approaches logic. But that’s the thing with atheists. They don’t even play their own rules?

[RolandCuthbert]

I answered your questions. And it seems that many atheists resort to whining as a method for debating. Maybe try stating some facts. You guys are supposed to be good at that.

[AndrésC64]

Again with the lack of logic on your part. Apples and oranges. We know brains exist because we have seen them. We have touched them. People have tasted them. People have smelled them. Your invisible friend, not so much.

[AndrésC64]

Last time. When was the last time religion corrected or changed anything? Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong? Are you willing to admit that your God may not exist? Because I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can be wrong. Can you do the same?

by the way: if you don't answer these questions don't bother replying at all.

[RolandCuthbert]

And the vast majority of scientists know there is no current model available to explain consciousness. The concepts of mathematics exist outside the human brain. The universe works like mathematical clockwork and those concepts exist without the human brain. And so do concepts like love, faith, etc.

I won't bother going into the details of the problems with explaining consciousness. Because you are not a very sophisticated person. And the vast majority of scientists are baffled by it.

How could an organ, that sits in the dark black box of the human skull, create such a vivid world around us? Because that is what it is doing. . ."creating". There are so many issues.

But, it isn't like you have the ability to understand them.

You simply have "faith" that there are explanations out there somewhere.

[RolandCuthbert]

You can ask as many times as you wish. Back in the late 1400s, the Catholic Church created some mythology about the afterlife. The leaders created a place called purgatory. It was a holding pen for souls that were bound for heaven. And in order to reduce one's time in purgatory, you had to buy this service offering called "indulgences". In the 1500s the Catholic Church experienced a huge backlash culminating in the "Reformation" because policies like these created to take advantage of believers. Those deceitful practices were then banned.

The church was "Reformed". That's why it is called the "Reformation".

Think logically for a second. I have not claimed one time that I have some fact or evidence proving God exists. So why in the world would I engage in some new belief system making the claim that He does not exist?

It is the stupidest comment I have ever heard of.

[menina]

I guess that when you believe in something, you just believe it. Perhaps they don't question their beliefs they seem real to them.

[annabananna]

I accidentally put I don’t question my beliefs but I do And to be ho eat I’m not 100% certain I just have faith in it.

[ManOnFire]

I did that already when I was a teen. I questioned the idea of God and things in the Bible like everyone else - and there are still some things I do question - but when I started gravitating towards unbelief, that oddly made me feel worse and it seemed so empty, and then I started asking myself an opposite question: why shouldn't God matter?

It amazes me how funny people are. They can believe in time travel and alternate universes, what they have no real proof of existing, or they'll believe in aliens, who most people have never even seen and these supposed alien beings with supposed higher intelligence are certainly not coming down here to help us but stay in hiding and torment people in the night, yet people can't or don't want to believe in a God that put us here and had it written. That is even stranger to me than believing.

[AndrésC64]

So we agree that people believe in all sorts of silly things without evidence. The difference being that I understand that your belief is no different.

[ManOnFire]

@AndrésC64 Actually there is evidence of God. In Job 28:25 we see that air has weight, what scientists didn't discover until ages later. Outside of the Bible, there is an ancient stele with king Sennacherib's words on it saying he "was unable to yoke the Jew Hezekiah," which confirms the story of it in 2 Kings.

The Saudi gov has also completely fenced off the real Mt. Sinai because there is obviously evidence up there of Moses or the Exodus. Outside of the mountain there are ancient etches on stones in the desert that are written in the old Hebrew alphabet. There was also a menorah etched on one stone but it was scratched off so no one would ever see it but luckily there was a scientist who already took a picture of it before somebody did that.

Wanna get weirder? A Muslim man said Jesus met him in the night at mecca years ago and called him to follow him. This guy never gave a thought to Jesus in his whole life being a Muslim. He said Jesus touched his chest and on that spot the hairs there are still white.
https://youtu.be/-FylmW4TzP4

[AndrésC64]

You realize that the Bible isn't evidence, right? The Bible is the claim.

It is far as artifacts go, that does absolutely nothing to prove the existence of God. Just like if 2,000 years from now, when New York City is a ruins and people finding Spider-Man comics. Just because New York is real doesn't mean Spider-Man is.

Want to hear something even weirder? There are tons of people who claim to have been abducted and anally probed by aliens.

[ManOnFire]

@AndrésC64 Even if the Bible is the claim, the evidence can't be disputed. The artifacts help prove what non-believers don't believe in.

And those "aliens" are evil beings. They do exist, but they aren't actual aliens as we think of them in the Hollywood sense. They are demonic entities.

[AndrésC64]

What evidence is there that can't be disputed? Hell, what evidence is there at all?

What evidence do you have to support the claim that what people claim are aliens are actually demons?

[ManOnFire]

I just gave you some, but I have more. Take some time to really listen to what he says. His brother also told his own story but I think this brother goes into more depth about it.
https://youtu.be/WycHllG8miE

[AndrésC64]

Couldn't care less what someone claims. Do they have any actual evidence to support those claims? No.

[ManOnFire]

@AndrésC64 If you really listened to it you would know he said he spoke to multiple sources. It's interesting that you ask for evidence, but then it's given, and it still doesn't satisfy you.

[AndrésC64]

I don't care how many people he talk to or what they said. Does he have any evidence? No.

[genericname85]

why do you assume that they are? i learn something new every day. me denying things that are claimed without evidence or in contradiction to what is evidently true doesn't make me "reluctant to exame my believe". my believes follow evidence and facts. not ideology and opinion.

[AndrésC64]

Are you saying that you believe in God and that your belief is based on evidence?

[genericname85]

No. I don't believe in things that aren't based in evidence, so obviously i don't believe that there's a god.

[AndrésC64]

Ok. Just wanted to make sure.

[genericname85]

i know it's challenging these days with christians learning to use the rethorics of science and logic without actually using science or logic to make their points.

[Valso]

They don't question them bc the brainwashing factory has convinced them from childhood that if you question your deity, you'll be killed and sent to hell. All religions have one thing in common - they rule through fear.

Even as a kid I've always been a rebel, doing the exact opposite of what I was told, so when I was 9 I started questioning the deity. I wasn't struck down and sent to hell which only proved to me there's no such a thing as an all dumb imaginary friend in the clouds.

[AndrésC64]

Yep. And any god that would send any of his children to hell for any reason is not a God I would care to be around.

[Chazmatazz269]

This isn’t a characteristic limited to “theists”. Everyone attaches themselves too strongly to their ideas and beliefs. It doesn’t come naturally to anyone to examine these things, let alone change them. Read “Being Wrong” by Kathryn Schultz.

[AndrésC64]

True. I was just focusing on theists in particular.

[spg12212122]

God is a concept and atheists fail to realise that they reject the whole notion. Not just malevolent deities but also good deities. I think its very special that we as a society can imagine things like angels, demons, devils, ghosts and aliens. You could say that they are all aliens and that they don't exist and were all alone in this universe that is equally terrifying.

[spg12212122]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Besides who said theists don't question beliefs? That sounds generalised.

[AndrésC64]

I understand perfectly that God is a concept just like vampires and unicorns. It's theists that are the ones that don't understand that.

[AndrésC64]

I don't reject the idea per se. I just am not going to accept the idea until I see good reason to do so. No one has ever come up with a good reason.

[spg12212122]

You sound like the perfect person to join the Vatican. I am sure those elites will convince you.

[AndrésC64]

WTF are you babbling about?

[spg12212122]

Well the Vatican welcome sceptics..

[AndrésC64]

And?

[spg12212122]

The Vatican are the biggest sceptics.. You will be among friends. They want to prove his existence too.

[AndrésC64]

What? How do you figure that that makes us a good match?

[spg12212122]

Because they want intelligent people to debunk miracles.. You don't have to be a priest.

[AndrésC64]

They don't want people to debunk miracles. If they did they would never declare a miracle because a miracle cannot happen. Things that are impossible do not happen, by definition.

[spg12212122]

Nope. A miracle is something possible but impossible for a human.

[AndrésC64]

And if something happens that is possible, no matter how unlikely, it's not a miracle.

There's absolutely no way to prove a miracle. The best anyone can do is say either, "Wow! That was extraordinarily unlikely". Or "I don't know how that happened". But to declare it a miracle is simply not something that one can do with any amount intellectual honesty.

[spg12212122]

I believe you well said

[AndrésC64]

Give me an example of a miracle.

[spg12212122]

Let me define miracle:

Statistically "impossible" events are often called miracles (with a pinch of salt). For instance, when three classmates accidentally meet in a different country decades after having left school, they could consider this as "miraculous".

However, a colossal number of events happen every moment on Earth; thus extremely unlikely coincidences also happen every moment. Events that are considered "impossible" are therefore not impossible at all – they are just increasingly rare and dependent on the number of individual events. British mathematician J. E. Littlewood suggested that individuals should statistically expect one-in-a-million events ("miracles") to happen to them at the rate of about one per month. By his definition, seemingly miraculous events are actually commonplace.

American Revolutionary War patriot Ethan Allen wrote, "In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue."

Hope that answer suits :)

[spg12212122]

Life is a miracle and so is the universe.

[AndrésC64]

Then by that definition there is no such thing as a miracle. What some people call a miracle is simply an unlikely event happening. Three old school mates meeting in a foreign country maybe extremely unlikely, but that doesn't make it a miracle. It's simply makes it very unlikely. As you pointed out, unlikely things happen all the time.

[AndrésC64]

How are life and the universe miracles?

[spg12212122]

Life and the universe however did it arrive at purely natural processes an Ordinary Providence or an extraordinary providence. We don't know what type of miracle it is whether natural or supranatural however it is by the very defintion a miracle as described by the unlikelyhood.

We may never know how they came to be life or the universe and are impossible by definition of statistics. The most fundamental reason that people don’t believe the miracles in the Bible is because they already believe something else, namely, that miracles are impossible. In other words, they have a worldview that rules out the supernatural. Thus, it doesn’t really matter how good the evidence for a particular miracle might be. It doesn’t really matter how many eyewitnesses there are. Such factors are irrelevant. Any claim to the miraculous must be rejected in principle.

Because God brought the physical universe into existence, and stands above and beyond the physics of this space-time continuum, He also has the capacity to intervene, redirecting or suspending these laws for His specific purposes. The traditional term for this intervention is extraordinary providence, commonly understood as “miracle.” Extraordinary providence would include situations in which God might use the forces of nature “in a way that was out of the ordinary to produce unexpected results.”

[AndrésC64]

Just because we don't know how the universe and life came into being and that those processes may be extraordinarily complex, that does not in any way imply that it was a miracle or that there was a god involved. If it happened by simply natural processes, then that's not a miracle. It's simply something that was highly unlikely. Highly unlikely things happen all the time. Can you give me an example of a real miracle that we could actually test? Because anything short of that is simply claiming that something is a miracle without any evidence to support that claim.

[spg12212122]

Hence the search for aliens, the moment they break the laws of nature they become Gods.

[AndrésC64]

I'm looking for an example where God intervened and/or redirected or suspended the laws of nature. Can you name one?

[spg12212122]

Scientists don't know the universe well enough so most things are miracles until proven otherwise. They believed the harvest was a miracle, raising of sheep, child birth all things they celebrated as divine intervention. Miracles still exist even in educated nations called the unexplained.

[AndrésC64]

No. We don't assume something is a miracle. We assume it is natural until proven otherwise. We don't assume magic until we have ruled out the natural.

The unexplained and miracles are entirely different. The unexplained means we simply don't know. A miracle is something that goes against or breaks all of our knowledge about the laws of nature. That would be impossible for someone to claim, because the only way that they could make that claim would be for them to fully understand the incident in question. To claim that something is a miracle (magic) is not an answer. It's nothing more than throwing your hands in the air and saying "I don't know, must have been some god or something "outside" of the universe and/or something that can break the laws of the universe."

[AngryCarl]

Religion isn't science. If you pick the wrong religion you might have a miserable life but it won't stop your domestic appliances working and objects won't start falling upwards.

[blissinanarchy1]

I find faith is stronger when you examine it. I started at a point of atheism, not just believing it from birth.

[KittyBox]

I don't have any beliefs, I am a sith, i only deal in absolutes.

[strateguy632]

because which faith is something that matters

[BCRanger10]

What makes you so certain that we don't?

[AndrésC64]

Okay, do you? And if you have, what have you done and what reasons have you come up with for believing in a God?

[BCRanger10]

Yes. In fact, earlier in the summer, I became a Catechist, which involved, for me, two years of doctrinal formation. It was a lot of reading of various catechisms and mail-in tests.

[AndrésC64]

I was erased Catholic. I did all that. That isn't questioning, that's indoctrination.

[AndrésC64]

*raised Catholic.

[BCRanger10]

Okay, what are you defining as "questioning"?

[AndrésC64]

I mean asking questions like, why do theists continually claim that something can't come from nothing, and then in the very next sentence say that God created the universe from nothing? Why is there absolutely no evidence for the existence of this God? Why is there evil in the world if everything was created by this loving God? Why does this loving God stand by and watch as his children are tortured for eternity? What kind of a parent would do that? If there is only one God, why are there so many religions? Do you really think that you would be a Christian if you had been born in Pakistan, India, Israel?

[BCRanger10]

Are you under the impression that I've reflected on none of those questions before?

[AndrésC64]

I'm under the impression that if you did examine them you didn't do so very thoroughly.

[AndrésC64]

If you have examined questions like these, what conclusions have you come to?

[BCRanger10]

How are you defining "thoroughly"?

[AndrésC64]

As in, if you've done a lot of examination, what conclusions have you come to?

[BCRanger10]

You did throw quite a few questions at me. Is there any one of those in particular you'd like to start with?

[AndrésC64]

Why do so many Christians say in one breath that something can't come from nothing, and then in the very next breath say that God poofed the universe into existence from nothing? They want to have their cake and eat it too. What's your position?

[BCRanger10]

Linguistics. You're talking about two different senses of what it means to "create". To create from nothing is an act of which only God is capable of, and the Hebrew word which communicates this would show up in English as "bara". In this sense, it means that God did not require any pre-existing source material in order to create the universe. He was not required to, compelled by, or instructed by any agents outside of Himself to create.

In the other sense however, "to create" is thought of more in the sense of "to develop" or "to form", the word for which is "yatzar"; God can and does also create in that sense, but it's obviously a different kind of creation and is not exclusive to God.

The concept of intelligent design also factors in when speaking of creation. To say "something cannot come from nothing" means, effectively, that a machine as finely tuned and ordered as the universe does not happen by chance or accident. If something like the universe is to exist in reality, it would have to first exist as a concept, in a mind; if there is a law of gravity for example, it reasonably implies that there is a legislator of gravity.

[AndrésC64]

To say that only God capable of creation out of nothing is a logical fallacy known as Special Pleading.

The concept of intelligent design is one of the least intelligent things ever. I challenge you to name one thing about the human body that couldn't be designed better? If God created us he's a complete bumbling idiot. Having us eat and breathe through the same tube so that we can drown or choke to death? Not a good design. Having the retinal nerve in the back of the eye creates a blind spot. We are not able to sense the size important vitamin C like other mammals. For a great number of people the jaw is not big enough and they have to have their wisdom teeth removed. Many women and children die during birth because the birth canal is so narrow. A great number of animals have better sight than we do. Any human with half a brain would know not to make these kind of mistakes. Intelligent design is a very fringe idea among scientists. It has

[AndrésC64]

* it has even been defeated in a court of law.

It has been thoroughly debunked.

[BCRanger10]

Not at all. Special pleading is a double standard. That's when, for example, an authority figure makes or enacts a rule which they themselves choose not to follow or claim it doesn't apply to them because they are the authority.

On the other hand, the philosophical definition of "property" is an attribute which doesn't constitute a being's or a thing's essence, but follows from the essence. It's a characteristic that's distinct and specific to that being or thing. For example, in accordance with that definition - and despite what idiots in Hollywood, on Twitter, or at the universities might claim - giving birth to a child is proper only to the nature and essence of a woman. In the same way, the word "bara" that I noted earlier communicates the definition of property; "bara" means to create from nothing, which is specific and proper only to God. It is perfectly sound.

Additionally, arguing from the weaknesses and limitations of the body doesn't hold up because the same body is also capable of some pretty incredible things. The same body, under no command of the mind, is able to heal itself after injury, disease, or trauma. It's able to push itself to the absolute limits of endurance, as with military special forces training. And that's not to say anything of the generation and moral formation of another human being.

[AndrésC64]

Yes, it is a Special Pleading. For you to claim that ONLY what you are in favor of is capable of something, is a special pleading. Unless of course you can prove otherwise, which you can't. You want to play by different rules than you apply to everyone else.

[AndrésC64]

Pointing out flaws in our design absolutely is a valid argument against intelligent design. There's really nothing intelligent about the way we were designed. As I said, I challenge you to name one part of the human body that couldn't be improved upon. Hell, I can think of lots of ways and I'm nowhere near a genius, let alone omniscient or omnipotent.

[AndrésC64]

Not to mention the fact that you are putting the cart before the horse. Give me evidence that any god (s) exists, and then we can talk about whether it's capable of creation or not.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support the existence of any god (s)?

[BCRanger10]

No, it is not special pleading and yes, I can prove it.

The definition of special pleading is applying an exception to a principle, standard, or rule WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. I would be committing this fallacy if I were to say that something cannot result from nothing, but that I believe God created out of nothing simply because I FEEL that's what happened, or simply because I need a reason to justify my faith, or to otherwise avoid a weakness in my argument. I have not done this. I've provided the Hebrew word for "create" (and I can even cite other places in the Bible where this original word was used, as well as provide confirmation by an Israeli rabbi; and if you're wondering why I mention these, it's because the Catholic faith flowered out of the Jewish faith) and I also provided the philosophical definition of "property".

Another reason why special pleading doesn't apply here is because we're talking about two different types of beings. Humans are physical, natural, material, and finite. God, however, is supernatural. He is transcendent. He is not bound by physical reality or boundaries, as humans are. And because God is a supernatural being, it follows that He can employ supernatural means to accomplish something He intends to do, like, for example, creating and not depending on queues or pre-existing materials.

[AndrésC64]

It is a special pleading because you are claiming use of something that no one else can. That is by definition a Special Pleading. Nobody cares what the Bible says. If we went strictly on what the Bible says we wouldn't need science, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And your "justification", is nothing more than post hoc semantics.

[AndrésC64]

In addition to what you say being a special pleading, it isn't evidence for anything. You can't use the Bible to back up your claims about the Bible. The Bible is the claim, not the evidence. Just like Dianetics is not evidence for Xenu, the Vedas are not evidence for Brahma, Wicca is evidence for the Goddess and the horned God, the Epic of Gilgamesh is evidence for Ishtar, the writings of Homer are evidence for Zeus...

[BCRanger10]

Yes, no one else can create from nothing because no one else except God is omnipotent (all-powerful) or omniscient (all-knowing) and therefore does not have the ability to command something into existence. As for post hoc? Also yes, because the effect always follows the cause, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

And as for the Bible, I'm not saying "it's in the Bible, so therefore it's true". I'm saying that the same word is used in other places and is only used in relation to God.

[AndrésC64]

I love the way that you think examining your beliefs involves looking at the Bible. Again, the Bible is not the evidence, the Bible is the claim.

[AndrésC64]

And just as other holy texts are not evidence for their gods neither is yours.

[BCRanger10]

As with what I said at the beginning, it's a matter of linguistics.

But at this point, I'm just repeating myself. I can only say the same thing in different ways so many times, which is getting exhausting and I'm wasting my time. You're just disregarding, ignoring, or minimizing everything I say. I think that your true assumption with this question is that deep down, all believers are really atheists that just haven't realized it yet. In fact, you said or at least implied so yourself with the comment "I'm under the impression that if you did examine them (my religious beliefs) you didn't do so very thoroughly."

That said, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion any further.

[AndrésC64]

I agree with you. You have no interest in actually examining your beliefs. You think that going through the Bible and finding things that support your beliefs is somehow examining them. You think that your holy book is somehow evidence for your god. Neither of those things are true. Nor is what you said about me thinking that all believers are atheists. I said that you haven't examined your beliefs thoroughly if you think that you can use the Bible to support your beliefs about the Bible.

[jshm2]

You're not the brightest, then.

Theists do nothing but examine their beliefs. It's you that tries the argument by assertion fallacy, and projects their insecurities to boot.

[AndrésC64]

Oh really? So what have you done to examine your beliefs? What reasons do you have to believe in an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, "being" that somehow "exists" outside of space (nowhere) and outside of time (never)?

[anylolone]

Because their beliefs have been tried and tested by natural selection.

[Andres77]

Why are atheists so ignorant of history?

[Andres77]

Answer me when you’re dead.

[AndrésC64]

History? You talking about?

[Andres77]

Shoot, Sparky!

[AndrésC64]

What?