I will happily answer that question. I routinely tell other religious people to examine ------the trinity or psychotic suffering from epileptic fits being a prophet. Two, almost every educated believer who has spent time studying, and contemplating completely accepts the fact that there is chance we are wrong. We have faith but it is not always 100 percent. We also know it is faith and we do not expect most "thinkers" to even consider our faith rational because that would be too challenging to their weltenschung (world view). Cutten your arguments cut both ways. Thinking people exist on both sides and both sides have dopes. I believe the only worthy position is a studied position. (Conclusions may differ).
But if they have no evidence by which to judge the truth or falsity of those criteria, then how can they have an opinion on whether those criteria are true or false?
"I have argued before, unchallenged in the argument, that it is not possible to have a conception in the mind without a corresponding belief about the reality of that concept." Nonsense. Someone already blew you out of the water on this one. Its EASY to explain a concept to someone and have them simply remain in an undecided state when it comes to belief. Agnostics do this all the time. Ask them if they believe in god, and they will answer I DONT KNOW. "Infinite, Eternal, The Supreme Being, Causeless, Absolutely Gracious, Omniscient, Absolutely Blissful, Omnipresent, Self Complacent, and existing without any opposite value then I believe in them too." I see... so as long as I DEFINE something as these things, then you will believe in it? Ok... thats easy... my big fat brown CRAP I took yesterday is Infinite, Eternal, The Supreme Being, Causeless, Absolutely Gracious, Omniscient, Absolutely Blissful, Omnipresent, Self Complacent, and existing without any opposite value. Oh...and dont ask for PROOF, or I will simply respond that I have FAITH. Now BOW DOWN to my big fat crap! See how silly this all is? "This is why the atheist cannot prove the faithful wrong in their beliefs, as they can never know with mathematical certainty that the faithful don't experience God." Clearly you havent a CLUE where the burden of proof lies. They dont have too. peace axeman
Plenty of evidence exists of imperfection, limits, time, spot existence, and space. A-imperfection, A-limits, A-time, A-spot existence, and A-space. If truth is a consequence of human perception and relativistic logic, than truth is dependent on human perception and relativisitic logic, and by definition is not absolute but relative truth, as human perception and relativistic logic are not absolutes. If truth is independent of human perception and relativistic logic, then it exists outside of human perception and relativistic logic. Most theists seek absolute, not relative truth, as they define God as Absolute Truth.
Ok, but what is it about those qualities that leads you to believe he exists? I could just as easily say "If God was small, green and humanoid, then I would believe in him too. However, only Little Green Men are definied as having all those qualities."
If you choose to believe in God as a small, green, humanoid, then that is your belief system of God. I seek something absolute myself.
The question I am asking is why use faith for religion, when you do not use faith for other beliefs, especially in light of the fact that faith has an extremely poor record in identifying true beliefs (people had faith in alchemy, witchcraft, astrology, animism etc).
I apply faith where physical senses and relativistic logic are not going to be effective. I fully support relativistic logical thought, use of the senses, science, etc. to explore the physical world and the field of realtivity. Right tool for the right job. However, when it comes to the concept of the field of the Absoute, i.e. God, I apply faith.