A Question for Believers

[Skeptical Greg]

The more I study, the more I believe I have learned.

And what is one of the things you have have learned ? ( that I might find compelling )

P.S.
I might add , the more I studied the less I believed...

 

[geni]

An analogy would be:

" I believe in General Motors. I am compelled to believe this by the Buick sitting in my driveway.. ( As opposed to: " I read through an owners manual once.. ) "

So far no one has named anything tangible.


Being skeptical and such, appeals to authority and popularity do not count as tangible.

Neither is anicdotal evidence there is no buick sitting in my driveway (I don't have a driveway).

 

[frisian]

If it's a compelling reason for you, why isn't it reasonable for you to assume that it is compelling also for me?

Because I don't believe in a "universal mind"?

Many factors shape our varying beliefs, I believe, thus I wouldn't expect that which I find compelling to compel another. Do you believe we all experience the exact same things? All perceive identically?

 

[CWL]

Because it's like trying to track down the source of my belife in the scientific method. I can't say this it the bit of evidence that makes me think it works or this is the paper I read that made the whole thing click [/B]

So is your answer to my initial question a simple "no"?

 

[CWL]

Because I don't believe in a "universal mind"?

Many factors shape our varying beliefs, I believe, thus I wouldn't expect that which I find compelling to compel another. Do you believe we all experience the exact same things? All perceive identically?

No, but I certainly believe that there is evidence for certain things which I believe, which I believe should be compelling also for others.

The question is rather simple. Please read Diogenes latest posts.

 

[geni]

So is your answer to my initial question a simple "no"?

In so far as the question fits with my belife system you are correct. I'm trying to explain why the answer is no. (incerdently how well do you think I'd do over at RR trying to argue that god made people athiests?)

Eddited to add I made this clearer befor the forum crashed.

 

[CWL]

Neither is anicdotal evidence there is no buick sitting in my driveway (I don't have a driveway).

I think it might be more appropriate to have a look at Diogenes' driveway as that is the one he's referring to...

 

[frisian]

And what is one of the things you have have learned ? ( that I might find compelling )

P.S.
I might add , the more I studied the less I believed...

I believe I have learned that if I look to treat others as I wish to be treated, I can be occasionally content.

 

[CWL]

Eddited to add I made this clearer befor the forum crashed.

Well, I personally solved and tried to post the answer to the question of Life, Universe and Everything before the forum crashed. And now I can't remember it...

 

[CWL]

I believe I have learned that if I look to treat others as I wish to be treated, I can be occasionally content.

I happen to believe in the above statement myself, but it doesn't lead me to believe in the existence of a deity. Do you believe it should? If so, why?

 

[frisian]

No, but I certainly believe that there is evidence for certain things which I believe, which I believe should be compelling also for others.

The question is rather simple. Please read Diogenes latest posts.

The question is rather complex, unless I adhere to your presumptions.

 

[CWL]

The question is rather complex, unless I adhere to your presumptions.

What assumptions are you assuming that I have made?

 

[frisian]

I happen to believe in the above statement myself, but it doesn't lead me to believe in the existence of a deity. Do you believe it should? If so, why?

Oh, that isn't the sole reason. We are merely starting to unravel my belief arrangements.


I don't believe that, in and of itself one should believe in a deity.

 

[frisian]

What assumptions are you assuming that I have made?

That there are no god/gods.

 

[CWL]

That there are no god/gods.

In such case you are indeed correct that I make such an assumption, just the same as I do not assume the existence of pink unicorns. etc., etc., etc.

... but I am willing to be proven wrong.

However, my question was not related to my assumptions. Either you do believe that there is convincing evidence for the existence of a god (which you believe ought to be convincing for more people than yourself) or you do not. Simple yes/no question. If the answer is "yes" I have asked you to elaborate. If the answer is "no", you need not explain any further.

See? Simple - and nothing to do with my assumptions.

 

[frisian]

In such case you are indeed correct that I make such an assumption, just the same as I do not assume the existence of pink unicorns. etc., etc., etc.

... but I am willing to be proven wrong.

However, my question was not related to my assumptions. Either you do believe that there is convincing evidence for the existence of a god (which you believe ought to be convincing for more people than yourself) or you do not. Simple yes/no question. If the answer is "yes" I have asked you to elaborate. If the answer is "no", you need not explain any further.

See? Simple - and nothing to do with my assumptions.

Your question most certainly is related to your assumptions. In order for me to structure a reason for belief that is compelling to you, is improbable if not impossible.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Your question most certainly is related to your assumptions. In order for me to structure a reason for belief that is compelling to you, is improbable if not impossible.

I believe I said this on the first edition of this thread, and I believe Diogenes has touched on it a bit here, but what is being asked for is not something that is compelling to CWL (or anyone else for that matter. What is sought is what you feel should be compelling. Whether it is or not is a question for later.

 

[CWL]

Your question most certainly is related to your assumptions. In order for me to structure a reason for belief that is compelling to you, is improbable if not impossible.

No my question is not related to my assumptions.

I did not ask you to structure a reason for belief which is compelling to me.

I asked you to present a reason for belief which you believe ought to be compelling to me.

Spot the subtle, but rather important, difference.

Edited to add: The Marquis has got it exactly right.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Your question most certainly is related to your assumptions. In order for me to structure a reason for belief that is compelling to you, is improbable if not impossible.

So...you can only present a convincing evidence for the existence of deity to someone who is already convinced of the existence of deity? That's....neat.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

So...you can only present a convincing evidence for the existence of deity to someone who is already convinced of the existence of deity? That's....neat.

Keeps 'em in the pews, I guess.