truthislight:

did you not see there that faith is called evident demonstraion of realities though not yet Beheld?

"Evident demonstration of realities" lead to faith.

As such faith is assured owing to the demonstrated realities.

The bible also says, "add to you faith knowledge."

So, faith can only be sustain by knowledge, Without it the faith has no foundation.

And the knowledge enable one to have or demonstrate the reasons or realities of things to come though not yet Beheld.

How then can you have faith without a sound knowledge that should enable the demonstration of reasons/realities that will build and lead to having faith?

Oga mi, ur saying something similar to okeyxyz..

Faith is the evidence of things not seen..
You all are guilty of trying to twist the meaning of faith in order to validate your delusions (no offence intended).

If a young man speaks to someone imaginary everyday, do we call that faith or madness? If faith, why? If madness, how do you prove he is mad? Won't you 'conviction' that he's mad be based on a comparison of his behaviour with what is generally regarded as 'sane' human behavior?

Therein lies the crux of my argument. If faith is the evidence of things not seen, then a lot of craziness currently exhibited in this world could be defined as faith..
Isn't it by faith that men flew planes into the WTC, hoping to meet 72 virgins?
Isn't it by faith that buzugee believes in his own interpretation of the Bible?
Is it by faith that you respond to the username 'muskeeto' believing it to be human, not a bot?

Enigma:

Could be one way to understand/explain Augustine's Crede, ut intelligas (believe, so that you may understand) and Anselm's Credo ut intellegam (I believe so that I may understand).

if that works for christinity and makes christianity true,

then surely it can work on islam and make islam true and

it can work on african traditionalists and make african traditionalists true and

then surely it can work on anything and make anything true

^^^ Please explain "make" true!

musKeeto: So could you define the relationship between faith and reason?

If faith is evidence of things not seen, how does that tally with reason/logic? Isn't reason/logic validated by evidence? Can you say the same for faith..

SEEING IS BELIEVING, BELIEVING IS SEEING?

simply put, faith transcends reason but doesnt oppose it.

Enigma: ^^^ Please explain "make" true!

you said and i quote:

Could be one way to understand/explain Augustine's Crede, ut intelligas (believe, so that you may understand) and Anselm's Credo ut intellegam (I believe so that I may understand).

i believe so i may understand sounds like how you come to understand your faith/convictions and come to the conclusion that your convictions/faaith is true and anything that contradicts it is false.

thats what your statement sound like to me. if i misunderstood you, kindly and graciously point it out.

gracias.

^^^ Well, all I will say for now is for you to read my post again carefully in the context of the statement/post that I quoted before referring to Augustine and Anselm.

musKeeto:
Oga mi, ur saying something similar to okeyxyz..

Faith is the evidence of things not seen..
You all are guilty of trying to twist the meaning of faith in order to validate your delusions (no offence intended).

Yes! faith is "evidence of things not seen", meaning the person who supposes to have faith has to personally demonstrate(evidence) his faith by his actions, ie a follow-up on his convictions(faith). There cannot be faith without an observation of the works(evidence) that it requires.

muskeeto:
If a young man speaks to someone imaginary everyday, do we call that faith or madness? If faith, why? If madness, how do you prove he is mad? Won't you 'conviction' that he's mad be based on a comparison of his behaviour with what is generally regarded as 'sane' human behavior?

If truly you read the bible like you'd like us to believe, then i'd expect you to also quote "by their fruits, you shall know them.." So we judge a person's faith by it's outcome. If somebody precisely predicts the outcome of an event in a way that cannot be scientifically explained, then you'd have to give him the "benefit of the outcome" even though you don't understand how he does those things. Now we know somebody to be mad because the things he says & professes never come to fruition. You see why christianity cannot be against reason or science?

muskeeto:
Therein lies the crux of my argument. If faith is the evidence of things not seen, then a lot of craziness currently exhibited in this world could be defined as faith..
Isn't it by faith that men flew planes into the WTC, hoping to meet 72 virgins?

You can say it is misguided "faith", therefore madness. Christian faith requires you to benefit from the life that is now and the one to come. For islam being a religion of peace, where's the benefit of killing innocent civilians in the WTC? it would be somewhat understandable if in a scenario of war/combat, but what challenge do the suicide bombers hope to overcome with their faith/actions? In christianity, whatever hope i have of the afterlife needs to be supported by the benefits i achieve in the current life through faith, for in the after-life, I don't need faith anymore. Like I said: misguided!!

muskeeto:
Isn't it by faith that buzugee believes in his own interpretation of the Bible?
Is it by faith that you respond to the username 'muskeeto' believing it to be human, not a bot?

Buzugee can believe whatever he wants, but it doesn't end there, I'd also like to see the results of his beliefs.

I don't need faith to repond to "muskeeto" which is a normal user handle like everyother user handle on nairaland. I simply trust him to be human until he demonstrates that he's not.

Ubenedictus: simply put, faith transcends reason but doesnt oppose it.

Contradiction.

But ofcourse, faith transcends reason.
Faith that the universe was created in six earth days transcends and opposes the known fact that the earth is 4.7 billion yrs old and that the universe is more than 14 billion yrs old.
Faith in a talking snake transcends and opposes the known fact that snakes do not have the ability to talk.
Faith in hoy spirit having physical sex with a virgin and impregnating her with physical seed transcends and opposes the nagging question of how spirit turns to flesh inside a virgin bosom.
Faith in the blood sacrifice of Jesus transcends and opposes the nagging questions of how blood sacrifice is supposed to save the world and what exactly is the world being saved from, and did the world fare any better after the supposed sacrifice ?

I can go on and on till next year on this.
Faith means, I dont know, I accept.
It is not conviction, it is not truth.

My Anony mentioned earlier that there was only one truth.
If so,does the fact that we have thousands of different sects and denominations of christianity not a testament to the fluidity of faith?.
Since faith is supposed to be grounded on conviction, how does conviction of one truth lead to tens of thousands of sects and denominations?

The very fact that we have different versions and characters of faith is simply because faith is synthesized in the mind. Unfortunately for humankind, it refuses to confine itself in that realm. It violently seeks expression in our reality, and in so doing, greatly distorts it.

plaetton:

Contradiction.

there is nothing contradictory here. Faith extends and goes beyond reason, but faith never opposes reason.

But ofcourse, faith transcends reason.
Faith that the universe was created in six earth days transcends and opposes the known fact that the earth is 4.7 billion yrs old and that the universe is more than 14 billion yrs old.

2 points u must consider, is the scale used in calculating d age of the earth absolute? Beside the bible can speak symbolical and days can be symbolic of 'space of time' something u would have known if u read d bible.

Faith in a talking snake transcends and opposes the known fact that snakes do not have the ability to talk.

a good scientist would admit a posibility unless he can conclusively proof that an event never has and never will happen. Besides if u happen to read the bible u will see that snake is a figure of d devil and doesnt necessary imply a physical snake. The bible can speak in types and figures.

Faith in hoy spirit having physical sex with a virgin and impregnating her with physical seed transcends and opposes the nagging question of how spirit turns to flesh inside a virgin bosom.

hahahahaha u make me laugh who told u that d holyspirit became man and had physical sex? I think u are making fairy tales. Next time make research.

Faith in the blood sacrifice of Jesus transcends and opposes the nagging questions of how blood sacrifice is supposed to save the world and what exactly is the world being saved from, and did the world fare any better after the supposed sacrifice ?

if u were a good law student u would have been aware that justice must be satisfied. Clearly u arent.

I can go on and on till next year on this.
Faith means, I dont know, I accept.
It is not conviction, it is not truth.

before u make stupid statements like this u man want to define 'conviction and truth' im sure u will find ou
t that u just contradicted urself. You cant believe unless u are convinced.

My Anony mentioned earlier that there was only one truth.
If so,does the fact that we have thousands of different sects and denominations of christianity not a testament to the fluidity of faith?.
Since faith is supposed to be grounded on conviction, how does conviction of one truth lead to tens of thousands of sects and denominations?

The very fact that we have different versions and characters of faith is simply because faith is synthesized in the mind. Unfortunately for humankind, it refuses to confine itself in that realm. It violently seeks expression in our reality, and in so doing, greatly distorts it.

ha! It must be expressed becos even d philosopher and great thinker will let u know that our minds dictate our actions. If the mind is one d divine the it will express d spiritual in reality. Yeah my friend there is one truth and each man has a jorney toward that truth. My jorney isnt urs, my perception isnt urs, so i see d truth from a different perspective from logic boy. Or maybe logicboy and i are looking at different ideas one true another false,but one thing it show is that we are making progress in our understanding of want truth is. The difference in ideas show me that there must be i true idea, one i believe i have found, God.

musKeeto:
Smh... WhAt r u? A reformed davidlyan?

Now, why would you say something like that, I wonder? Believe me, I'm not frustrated with you guys. I have to have greater expectation of you guys to be frustrated and I don't. You all ask very silly questions, create incredible meanings of spiritual things just so you can attack them and make fun of them, insist that a Christian is dumb and won't use his mind then get upset that he actually does. . ., and I'm supposed to take you guys seriously? That was when I started debating you guys. I thought you guys had brains and could think and analyze things logically. I even excused your lack of spiritual understanding. But there's no sense in doing that anymore. It doesn't matter how many times and with how many of you I debate, your atheistic positions are thoroughly emotional and unscientific and because this is so, you accuse every serious debater who shoots holes in your arguments and renders them baseless as emotional and unscientific.

I no longer take you guys seriously, believe me. If I did, there'd be reason to compare me to davidylan. As it is, I just mock you guys when I think it's worth it to do so.

Y'all holla when y'all got real arguments against God.

Ihedinobi:

Now, why would you say something like that, I wonder? Believe me, I'm not frustrated with you guys. I have to have greater expectation of you guys to be frustrated and I don't. You all ask very silly questions, create incredible meanings of spiritual things just so you can attack them and make fun of them, insist that a Christian is dumb and won't use his mind then get upset that he actually does. . ., and I'm supposed to take you guys seriously? That was when I started debating you guys. I thought you guys had brains and could think and analyze things logically. I even excused your lack of spiritual understanding. But there's no sense in doing that anymore. It doesn't matter how many times and with how many of you I debate, your atheistic positions are thoroughly emotional and unscientific and because this is so, you accuse every serious debater who shoots holes in your arguments and renders them baseless as emotional and unscientific.

I no longer take you guys seriously, believe me. If I did, there'd be reason to compare me to davidylan. As it is, I just mock you guys when I think it's worth it to do so.

Y'all holla when y'all got real arguments against God.

Oh dear, did the davidylan comparison hurt that much?
As per your accussations, feel free to go through my profile and find proof of such.
What questions do you regard as silly? Those that put the Bible in bad light or sincere questions that seek to clear up issues, e.g the seeming conflict btw faith and reason..

Tbh, all you have done on this thread is play the role of cheerleader/court jester.

I would take you seriously, though, even my dog expects me to clean up its shit...

Mr_Anony:
My friend, the problem you have is with blind faith. the sad thing it seems to me is that you have replaced blind faith in God with blind faith in what we call scientism.

Faith is: "God did it".
Science is: "How did God do it?"
Philosophy is: "Why did God do it?"

........The correct religiously biased understanding of this relationship is what it means to be an irrational being.

your statement will only make sense if your definition of God is clear, unambigous,non-subjective, and universal like scientific theories and facts.

musKeeto:
Oh dear, did the davidylan comparison hurt that much?
As per your accussations, feel free to go through my profile and find proof of such.
What questions do you regard as silly? Those that put the Bible in bad light or sincere questions that seek to clear up issues, e.g the seeming conflict btw faith and reason..

Tbh, all you have done on this thread is play the role of cheerleader/court jester.

I would take you seriously, though, even my dog expects me to clean up its shit...

Ok guys slow down! this is degenerating into personal insults. Let's tone it down a notch shall we?

cyrexx:

your statement will only make sense if your definition of God is clear, unambigous,non-subjective, and universal like scientific theories and facts.

Scientism! Pseudo-Scientism! in fact, Science-Fictionism!!! Lol.

Bad science!..........that's what I'll call your religion....and you are really fanatical about it.

In your words:

"You have been brainwashed with Bad-Science-Fiction! Free yourself from mental slavery!!!"

A propos the attitude of the evangelical atheists and reactions of others etc:

The first thing is that the evangelical atheists (and others who have not looked closely) like to put out the myth that atheists are particularly intelligent. The truth is that when a truly intelligent person seeks to engage in debate with the evangelical atheists you are soon shocked at how shallow (and even intellectually dishonest) many of them are actually.

This is not just about Nairaland evangelical atheists (although the case of most of them is incredibly bad and can be ridiculously juvenile) but has also been pointed out about the leading evangelists and bishops of the evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Dennnett etc etc and even in the specific case of theology the same was pointed out about Stephen Hawking by no less than Britain's former official number one scientist.

See this post and the whole of this thread where painstaking effort was taken deliberately to show the lack of depth of evangelical atheists' standard arguments. https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist/4#9584483


Because I like one particular line so much I will extract it here. Interestingly, the statement was made by a person who is himself an atheist. Per Terry Eagleton

“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”.

Dawkins' case is so bad that, for all his achievements elsewhere, I regard him as a theological dunce.

^^^

plaetton:

You are beginning to sound like frosbel. Everone knows her antics so we are all used her. But you Enigma, You are becoming an Enigma. It seems that you see this forum as a theatre of war rather than a place to share opinions.
You just cant refrain from getting personal and calling people names.
What would your world be like if everyone agreed with your points of view? If things you read in this forum angers and enrages you, then disengage yourself from it. You do not know anyone well enough to call them fools, idiotic, dishonest etc. I would rather enjoy reading your points of view rather than the sniper attacks on individuals and imaginary foes. Also, your points of view are more important to us than posting remarks or statements from sources we dont know and dont care about.
Just out of curiousity(no ridicule intended), are you a pastor or one those that earn a living from religion?.

jayriginal: Enigma you keep repeating the same things ad infinitum. What claim do you lay to expertise on theology ?
Do you and most others have any better claim to theological expertise than your best friend Dawkins ?  

Most people here go thus : I am a spirit filled christian. Therefore, I know/feel it in my spirit and you dont (ie those who dont believe what you believe).
Do you have more than this ?
If so, let us know. If not stop parroting the claim that you are the sole possessor of knowledge (of theology).



EDIT

jayriginal: Back to balancing the equation.
More fundamentalist mantras.

ARGUMENT FROM NON-CONFRONTATION
(1) I am not here to argue with you atheists.
(2) But come on, God obviously exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EXODUS
(1) If the Exodus story has any basis in historical fact, then God exists.
(2) Some guy found some chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea.
(3) There is absolutely no other way that chariots could get to the bottom of the Red Sea.
(4) This means the Exodus story is true.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MARTYRDOM
(1) The apostles would not have died for something they knew wasn't true.
(2) Atheist notes that the NT doesn't mention anyone dying for their knowledge of Jesus' "physical" resurrection.
(3) Atheist also gives examples of martyrs outside Christendom.
(4) Obviously those examples were fooled by Satan.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TINKERBELL
(1) I really want God to be real.
(2) If you wish for something really hard, it'll come true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM SHIFTED BURDEN OF PROOF
(1) You can't prove God doesn't exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE (I)
(1) I once experienced something I can't explain.
(2) Atheist offers several possible, natural explanations.
(3) You're just guessing!  I was there.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE (II)
(1) I have experienced feelings of God's presence in my mind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NEUROSCIENCE
(1) Scientists say a portion of our brain may be responsible for mystical experiences.
(2) God must have created our brain like that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EYEWITNESS (SOMETIMES FOLLOWS OR COMBINED WITH LACK OF EYEWITNESS I)
(1) Someone wrote the creation story in the Bible.
(2) That someone must have been an eyewitness to the described events.
(3) The only possible eyewitness was God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EYEWITNESS (I)
(1) You weren't there to witness abiogenisis/Big Bang/etc.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EYEWITNESS (II)
(1) No one's ever seen one species turn into another.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM HALF A WING
(1) Half of a wing is useless!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PREFERRED ANCESTRY
(1) I don't want to be related to monkeys.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FOOLISHNESS
(1) The Bible says atheists are fools.
(2) I don't want to be a fool.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PIG'S TOOTH
(1) Some scientists once thought a tooth was from an 'ape-man.'
(2) Later scientists discovered it was a pig's tooth.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (I)
(1) Someone made fun of my faith.
(2) God said that persecution would happen.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (III)
(1) You atheists are mean!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM JESUS SAID STUFF
(1) Jesus said some really cool stuff.
(2) No one else had said that stuff.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DIFFERENCES
(1) The Christian God is different than the gods of other religions.
(2) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN MORALITY (altho it could probably be adapted to just about any religion)
(1) Somewhere, someone who called himself or herself a Christian did something nice.
(2) This person was probably not lying.
(3) Therefore, this person was a Christian.
(4) Therefore, Christians do nice things.
(5) Therefore, Christians are moral.
(6) Christians believe in the Bible.
(7) Therefore, the Bible is moral.
( The Bible is God's word.  It says so.
(9) Therefore, God is moral.
(10) (We are just ignoring all the not-nice things that Christians may or may not have done in the past, it's hard to trust history anyway, there are enemies of God working everywhere).
(11) A moral God would be really nice.
(12) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CRAZINESS, a.k.a. PERCHANCE'S SISTER'S ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I would go crazy if I didn't believe in God.
(2) I am not crazy, and don't want to go crazy.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MRS. POPE'S ARGUMENT FROM CHOCOLATE
(1) Chocolate is God's gift to humanity.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
(3) Now class, would anyone like to attempt an Argument From Beer?

ARGUMENT FROM WWJD
(1) I have the “What Would Jesus Do?” T-shirt, bracelet, baseball hat, and shoelaces.
(2) I wear them in public.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTEREST
(1) If God really doesn’t exist than atheists wouldn’t spend so much time talking about him.
(2) [Atheist refutes (1).]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

REID’S ARGUMENT
(1) You assume that your senses are reliable even though you can’t prove it.
(2) That means I get to assume anything I want.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY
(1) [Christian posts argument.]
(2) [Atheist refutes argument.]
(3) Atheist, you obviously didn’t understand my argument.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CATCH-PHRASE, a.k.a. INVERSE TRUE SCOTSMAN ARGUMENT
(1) There are no atheists in foxholes.
(2) [Atheist points out atheists in foxholes.]
(3) They don’t count.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

TERCEL’S ARGUMENT FROM PROBABILITY
(1) We should believe what probably is true.
(2) I have arbitrarily assigned the proposition “God exists” a probability of 0.75.
(3) That probability came from my a.s.s, which I know assigns extremely accurate probabilities to propositions concerning the existence of God.
(4) So God probably exists.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FREE GIFT, a.k.a. KISSING HANK'S ASS (I)
(1) If some guy came up to you on the street and offered you a billion dollars for nothing in return, would you take the money or deny his existence?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CHARITY
(1) Atheists don’t build hospitals.
(2) [Atheist points out Bill Gates and Ted Turner, who donate billions of dollars to charity.]
(3) Yes, but do they build hospitals?
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SERIOUS ASSERTION
(1) God exists.
(2) No, seriously.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM POSITIVE OUTCOME
(1) Even if God doesn’t exist, it would be better if people believed He did.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE (I)
(1) I believe that if God exists, there will be no evidence for his existence.
(2) There is no evidence for the existence of God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE (II) (MODIFIED SIMPSON’S ARGUMENT)
(1) God, if you exist, please give me absolutely no sign.
(2)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM IDIOCY
(1) I am an idiot.
(2) Even an idiot can see that God exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TERRORISM (I)
(1) Terrorists destroyed the WTC, killing thousands.
(2) One piece of the rubble sort of looks like a cross.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TERRORISM (II)
(1) A plane was hijacked by terrorists.
(2) The passengers prayed and attacked the terrorists.
(3) The plane crashed into a field, killing all aboard.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TERRORISM (III), a.k.a. PERCHANCE'S SISTER'S ARGUMENT (II)
(1) September 11th was really, really bad.
(2) We have bad things happen to us when we're doing something bad.
(3) Therefore, September 11th was a punishment for something we did.
(4) Maybe it was being arrogant?
(5) Yeah, that's it!
(6) God let September 11th happen to teach America humility.
(7) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MASS MURDER
(1) Stalin was an atheist.
(2) He murdered millions of people.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TORNADOS
(1) A large tornado hit Kansas City.
(2) The tornado missed a church but destroyed several hundred homes.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SPAGHETTI
(1) A few people saw something weird in a bowl of spaghetti.
(2) Some Catholics believe that it is the Virgin Mary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MONEY
(1) All U.S. currency contains the motto "In God We Trust."
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (I)
(1) The Pledge clearly states that America is "one nation, under God * * *."
(2) The existence of God is thus a necessary condition for the existence of America.
(3) America exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS (I)
(1) Some of America's Founding Fathers wrote favorably about the Bible.
(2) The Founding Fathers were really, really smart.
(3) Accordingly, the Bible must be true.
(4) The Bible says that God exists.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS (II)
(1) The Declaration of Independence includes the words "God" and "Creator".
(2) Only a Christian would include the words "God" and "Creator"!
(3) Therefore this is a Christian Nation.
(4) A Christian Nation couldn't last over 200 years without God's help.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE FALL OF PAGAN ROME
(1) When Jesus was crucified, the Roman Empire was pagan, ruled by a pagan emperor.
(2) A couple of hundred years later, lots of Romans were Christians, and the emperor was a Christian too!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LOTS OF BOOKS
(1) The Bible has lots of books written by lots of authors over a long period of time.
(2) Through centuries of vigorous apologetics we've been able to forge a more or less coherent plot for the whole Bible.
(3) It is beyond human ability for so many authors over so long a time to write so many books from which we could hammer such a plot.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNLIKE OTHER RELIGIONS (I), e.g. ARGUMENT FROM SACRIFICE
(1) The Bible said Jesus died for our sins.
(2) No other religious text describes a god that died for our sins!
(3) Osiris, Mithra, Ishtar, Hercules, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Tammuz, Hermes, and Prometheus? Never heard of them!
(4) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNLIKE OTHER RELIGIONS (II), e.g. ARGUMENT FROM JESUS' RESURRECTION
(1) The Bible said Jesus rose from the dead.
(2) No other religious text describes a god that rose from the dead!
(3) All those other resurrected saviors? Never heard of them!
(4) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BRUTE FORCE
(1) [Christian tears Darwin Fish off car, breaks it in thirds, sticks it to driver's side window.]
(2) Therefore, the Theory of Evolution is wrong.
(3) Therefore, creationism is right.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TROY
(1) There is little archeological evidence for the events in Exodus.
(2) But look at Troy! It was discovered when people thought the Iliad was only a story! So who knows if there would be a time evidence for Exodus was discovered?
(3) Therefore the Exodus actually happened.
(4) Therefore the Bible is true.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL PROPHECY (I)
(1) The book of Daniel made some prophecies.
(2) The prophecy was later fulfilled by other records in the Book of Daniel.
(3) The prophecy came true!
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SHAME
(1) The Bible showed a group of people performing embarassing actions.
(2) It must be true if the book describes negative events.
(3) Therefore, the Bible is describing historical events.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EQUAL VALUE (PC ARGUMENT II)
(1) Evolution and the scientific worldview is a worldview. Similarly, the biblical worldview is a worldview.
(2) You are not discriminating against our worldview are you?
(3) The Biblical worldview is as good as the scientific worldview.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

LIBERALS' ARGUMENT FROM MODERATION
(1) The Creationist side occupies an extreme side of the spectrum.
(2) Similarly, the atheist side occupies another extreme side of the spectrum.
(3) The liberals are in between.
(4) Therefore, the liberal position on God is the most correct.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

JACK CHICK'S ARGUMENT FROM COMICS
(1) I have all these cool Jesus comics.
(2) I also think that guy called Eternal is smart with all those great arguments.
(3) Those comics sure convinced me!
(4) Therefore, God exists.

HENRY MORRIS' ARGUMENT FROM EVIDENTIAL ASSERTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore all physical evidence (fossil record etc.) must show this.
(3) Therefore it does.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF MEANNESS
(1) If God didn't exist, it would be mean of him to make me believe he did!
(2) God isn't mean.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM WE ALL GOT FAITH
(1) We all believe in something.
(2) Therefore we all have faith.
(3) My faith in God is no different from your faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM COOLNESS
(1) That's really cool.
(2) God must have done that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM WTC, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM TERRORISM (III)
(1) Terrorists destroyed the WTC, killing thousands.
(2) An intact Bible was found in the ruins.
(3) No, wait, it turns out it was a dictionary.
(4) Oh well, God exists anyway.

PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS' ARGUMENT FROM COLLEGE FUNDING
(1) You believe in God.
(2) If I ever find out that you don't believe in God, you won't get any money for college!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SNOWFLAKES, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (V)
(1) Out of 3,300 pictures of snow-crystals catalogued no two are exactly alike. Each has 6 points crossing at a 60 degree angle. If one is like a fern it has 6 out-pointing leaves; if like a windmill, it has 6 sails; if like a starfish, 6 ribs; or if like a fir tree, 6 stems with plumes set in perfect symmetry. This makes 3 distinct triangles to each flake. The Hebrew word for snow equals 333 (Hebrew letters stand for numbers).
(2) Could it not be that God has set His symbol of the Triune God in each flake? The average snow storm produces about 1000 billion crystals.
(3) Only an intelligent being could design so many forms.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CUSTODY
(1) We have legal custody of your son.
(2) If you don't act as though the Christian God exists, then we won't let you see him.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FIDEISM, a.k.a. MARTIN GARDNER'S ARGUMENT
(1) Atheists are absolutely right. There is no logical reason to believe God exists.
(2) But He makes me feel good anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PEPPER'S PHILOSOPHY CLASS, a.k.a. THE ENERGY ARGUMENT
(1) Things that exist have energy.
(2) Energy is alive.
(3) All living things are made from energy.
(4) God is made from energy.
(5) Therefore, God Exists.

ARGUMENT FROM A BAD TRIP
(1) I went to a party and took LSD.
(2) I saw demons attacking me.
(3) Then Jesus came and drove the demons away.
(4) So I joined the Assemblies of God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM A GOOD TRIP
(1) I went to a party and took LSD.
(2) I saw God and Jesus, and they love me.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

THE BORG'S ARGUMENT FROM STAR TREK
(1) You will be assimilated.
(2) All your salvations belong to us.
(3) Resistance is futile.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER (II)
(1) When I pray, either it comes true or God has a better plan.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
(1) God would never allow a non-Christian to become president.
(2) There has never been a non-Christian president.
(3) Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, Madison, and Lincoln? They said some things that kind of sounded like Christian statements.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PAIN AVOIDANCE
(1) If I don't believe God exists, I'll go to Hell.
(2) Please don't hurt me.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MOUNTAINS
(1) People used to think gods lived on Mt. Olympus.
(2) We've climbed Mt. Olympus and there were no gods there.
(3) Therefore, pagan gods are false.
(4) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FUZZY ANIMALS, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (VI)
(1) Bunnies are cute.
(2) Cuteness is not an evolutionary advantage.
(3) Therefore, cuteness must have been designed.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY
(1) The vast majority of the Americans believe in God.
(2) I'll get elected if I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

W'S ARGUMENT FROM PRESIDENTIAL IGNORANCE
(1) If I ask God to blesserize Texas, nobody'll mess with it.
(2) Nobody messes with Texas.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM COINCIDENCE
(1) We were driving home with our youth pastor when it started to rain really hard outside.
(2) We pulled over to the side of the road, joined hands and asked gawd to deliver us home safely.
(3) We arrived home safely.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM COMPUTERS
(1) I tried to delete a copy of the TEN COMMANDMENTS from my computer. It would not have mattered as I had another copy on file.
(2) Still the computer malfunctioned.
(3) The computer had more sense than atheists who made it.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INVISIBILITY
(1) God is invisible.
(2) I can't see God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM RAIN, a.k.a. PERCHANCE'S SISTER'S ARGUMENT (III)
(1) I wanted it to be a sunny day.
(2) I prayed it wouldn't rain.
(3) We had two thunderstorms.
(4) Obviously, God didn't want to answer my prayer.
(5) Of course not! What a selfish thing to pray for! How dare I try to compel God to my selfish desires!
(6) The rain was God's punishment for my selfish desires.
(7) Therefore, God exists.

METACROCK'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (I)
(1) I have a philosophy degree.
(2) Your knowledge in philosophy is paltry in comparison to mine.
(3) Therefore you are unable to comprehend my intense philosophical proofs of God's existence.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

METACROCK'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (II)
(1) I created the term "arbitrary necessity".
(2) It is a golden principle and applies to whatever I say it does.
(3) I say an eternal universe is an arbitrary necessity.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

BEN FRANKLIN'S ARGUMENT FROM BEER (I)
(1) "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
(2) Beer exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BEER (II)
(1) Christian: Whatever you believe in is your god.
(2) Atheist: I believe I'll have another beer.
(3) Ha ha.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MONKEYS
(1) If man came from monkeys, there shouldn't be any more monkeys.
(2) There are still monkeys.
(3) Therefore, God Exists.

ARGUMENT FROM C.S. LEWIS
(1) C.S. Lewis had a lot of good arguments in favor of Christianity , at least that’s what all my Christian friends tell me.
(2) C.S. Lewis wrote some popular books too!
(3) So anything C.S. Lewis said must be right!
(4) Therefore, God Exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL DESTRUCTION
(1) I woke up this morning and found that the universe still exists.
(2) Therefore, its destruction was averted by God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM DEAD FIREFIGHTERS
(1) All those dead firefighters were blessed by a Catholic priest before they gave their lives.
(2) For people they didn't even know!
(3) Yes, they were TOO mostly Catholics!
(4) I just know!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM TODD BEAMER
(1) Todd Beamer prayed "Our Father" with a switchboard operator after his flight was hijacked.
(2) Todd Beamer was a hero.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FALWELL
(1) Jerry Falwell said some really silly things after September 11th.
(2) Then he apologized!
(3) He was inspired by God to repent!
(4) No, it had nothing to do with the public outcry!
(5) Why? Because God told me so!
(6) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNNAMED SCIENTISTS (I)
(1) Some famous scientists believed in God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FLOWERS, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (VII)
(1) That flower is pretty.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INSTRUMENTATION
(1) You are an atheist.
(2) You did something kind.
(3) You are an instrument of God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS
(1) Quantum physics uses an uncertainty principle.
(2) There is room for God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY
(1) I am silly.
(2) God made man in his own image.
(3) There are all horrible disasters going around the world.
(4) God is omnipotent in power.
(5) God is too silly to do anything about these things.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

Mr_Anony:
Scientism! Pseudo-Scientism! in fact, Science-Fictionism!!! Lol.

Bad science!..........that's what I'll call your religion....and you are really fanatical about it.

In your words:

"You have been brainwashed with Bad-Science-Fiction! Free yourself from mental slavery!!!"

lets clearly define and understand and not muddle up these words to see who is really guilty between me and you:

fiction:

brainwashed:

religion:

science:

faith:

fanatism:

Lmao.. cyrexx has kee me..

Double post

musKeeto:
Oga mi, ur saying something similar to okeyxyz..

Faith is the evidence of things not seen..
You all are guilty of trying to twist the meaning of faith in order to validate your delusions (no offence intended).

If a young man speaks to someone imaginary everyday, do we call that faith or madness? If faith, why? If madness, how do you prove he is mad? Won't you 'conviction' that he's mad be based on a comparison of his behaviour with what is generally regarded as 'sane' human behavior?

Therein lies the crux of my argument. If faith is the evidence of things not seen, then a lot of craziness currently exhibited in this world could be defined as faith..
Isn't it by faith that men flew planes into the WTC, hoping to meet 72 virgins?
Isn't it by faith that buzugee believes in his own interpretation of the Bible?
Is it by faith that you respond to the username 'muskeeto' believing it to be human, not a bot?

we have brain what for?

For it to stand and test our faith and make sure we are not delusion it has to ensure that what we belief in is rational.

For it to be rational or to know whether it is rational you need the complete knowledge.

Therein lies the problem for genuine faith
"knowledge"
this knowledge is what helps you to know if it is rational or delusional
peace

@cyrexx:

Just yesterday 19 innocent people were killed by religion-inspired killers. This is now a daily trend. One would expect these die-hard goddists on and off this forum to begin an open debate on why the belief in god is causing so much problems and and threatening everyone's safety and well being.

But no. As usual, they have come here to do their bitter battle with their invisible and imaginary enemies(the evangelical atheists) of their imaginary god .

Whether it is boko haram or the super-theologians on this forum, there is always an enemy worth fighting for in the name of god.

In the face of this unprecedented org.y of violence in our land , We should expect the promoters of this medieval goddism to take a brief moment of introspection to deeply reflect on this Notion of god and what may be wrong with the idea.
Why does it breed so much hate, so much antagonism,so much division, so much fraud, so much exploitation, so much bloodshed?

But no, they bury their heads in the sand, point fingers and declare that it is the other person's religion and god that is the problem. Ofcourse, it is always the other person's religion(idea of god) that is the bad. Therein lies the problem.

A squirrel in this forum has declared a holy war against what he calls evangelical atheists with the first aim of declaring them a religion .
Isn't that interesting?
In other words, atheism can only be bad simply because it is a religion, a religion of fools, he adds.
You first of all declare something a religion and then you call them fools and demonise them.
What is the difference between this mindset and those of Boko Haram?

I wish they could invent a time machine so that we can give one way tickets to these boko haram and super-theologians, and send them back to the dark ages where they would truly feel at home.
They are nolstalgic. Their minds seem to be trapped in the good old days of the dark ages, where they can enjoy the goulish cries of heretics roasting in boiling oil.

musKeeto:
Oh dear, did the davidylan comparison hurt that much?
As per your accussations, feel free to go through my profile and find proof of such.
What questions do you regard as silly? Those that put the Bible in bad light or sincere questions that seek to clear up issues, e.g the seeming conflict btw faith and reason..

Tbh, all you have done on this thread is play the role of cheerleader/court jester.

I would take you seriously, though, even my dog expects me to clean up its shit...

Perhaps my jokes weren't first-rate, but I did intend to play court-jester. I didn't like it when you seemed to imply that I was insulting. I refrain from that as much as possible. As far as I'm concerned everyone is entitled to their opinion but when one's opinion is solely an attack on another's, I answer with either silence or mockery. I really am not upset, here. Whether I'm taken seriously or not is of little moment to me particularly because I'd fall asleep with boredom trying to have a meaningful debate with you guys. Pardon me my poor jokes, I beg you.

Jayriginal: Back to balancing the equation.
More fundamentalist mantras

Did you really post all that nonsensical garbage?

Honestly, I expect better from you. . . unfortunately you hold so firm to your belief that it is impossible to logically infer God, that you tenaciously reject even the sensible arguments for God's existence that there are. . . and there are several. But you would descend to culling and posting nonsensical mockeries of arguments, eh. Well done. Carry on. So long as it makes you sleep better at night.

None of the mockeries you culled up there are even faintly as nonsensical as your own position on the issue of causality alone. Plain irrational harry-potter voodoo; and yet you have the nerve to post mockeries. What a funny world.

Ihedinobi:

Now, why would you say something like that, I wonder? Believe me, I'm not frustrated with you guys. I have to have greater expectation of you guys to be frustrated and I don't. You all ask very silly questions, create incredible meanings of spiritual things just so you can attack them and make fun of them, insist that a Christian is dumb and won't use his mind then get upset that he actually does. . ., and I'm supposed to take you guys seriously? That was when I started debating you guys. I thought you guys had brains and could think and analyze things logically. I even excused your lack of spiritual understanding. But there's no sense in doing that anymore. It doesn't matter how many times and with how many of you I debate, your atheistic positions are thoroughly emotional and unscientific and because this is so, you accuse every serious debater who shoots holes in your arguments and renders them baseless as emotional and unscientific.

I no longer take you guys seriously, believe me. If I did, there'd be reason to compare me to davidylan. As it is, I just mock you guys when I think it's worth it to do so.

Y'all holla when y'all got real arguments against God.

Re-read and like considerably.

plaetton: @cyrexx:

Just yesterday 19 innocent people were killed by religion-inspired killers. This is now a daily trend. One would expect these die-hard goddists on and off this forum to begin an open debate on why the belief in god is causing so much problems and and threatening everyone's safety and well being.

But no. As usual, they have come here to do their bitter battle with their invisible and imaginary enemies(the evangelical atheists) of their imaginary god .

Whether it is boko haram or the super-theologians on this forum, there is always an enemy worth fighting for in the name of god.

In the face of this unprecedented org.y of violence in our land , We should expect the promoters of this medieval goddism to take a brief moment of introspection to deeply reflect on this Notion of god and what may be wrong with the idea.
Why does it breed so much hate, so much antagonism,so much division, so much fraud, so much exploitation, so much bloodshed?

But no, they bury their heads in the sand, point fingers and declare that it is the other person's religion and god that is the problem. Ofcourse, it is always the other person's religion(idea of god) that is the bad. Therein lies the problem.

A squirrel in this forum has declared a holy war against what he calls evangelical atheists with the first aim of declaring them a religion .
Isn't that interesting?
In other words, atheism can only be bad simply because it is a religion, a religion of fools, he adds.
You first of all declare something a religion and then you call them fools and demonise them.
What is the difference between this mindset and those of Boko Haram?

I wish they could invent a time machine so that we can give one way tickets to these boko haram and super-theologians, and send them back to the dark ages where they would truly feel at home.
They are nolstalgic. Their minds seem to be trapped in the good old days of the dark ages, where they can enjoy the goulish cries of heretics roasting in boiling oil.

re-read once again and like so much!

Deep Sight:

Did you really post all that nonsensical garbage?

Honestly, I expect better from you. . . unfortunately you hold so firm to your belief that it is impossible to logically infer God, that you tenaciously reject even the sensible arguments for God's existence that there are. . . and there are several. But you would descend to culling and posting nonsensical mockeries of arguments, eh. Well done. Carry on. So long as it makes you sleep better at night.

None of the mockeries you culled up there are even faintly as nonsensical as your own position on the issue of causality alone. Plain irrational harry-potter voodoo; and yet you have the nerve to post mockeries. What a funny world.

So you say. You should understand the thread from which it came and the context it was posted in first.

And as for nerve, you have a lot of it to use words such as "mockeries", "nonsensical" etc, in reference to anything.

Its a funny world indeed.

^^^^^
Hmmmmm!
Brain battles.
Epic. ^^^^^
Hmmmmm!
Brain battles.
Epic.

jayriginal:

So you say. You should understand the thread from which it came and the context it was posted in first.

And as for nerve, you have a lot of it to use words such as "mockeries", "nonsensical" etc, in reference to anything.

Its a funny world indeed.

Can you show me the thread from which it came?

https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist

Enjoy.

O, I see. But both sides were just profering mockery and absurdity. Not worth any serious person's while. Apologies, though if i were you I would rather have ignored such than become entangled in such pedantic meaninglessness.

No wahala.

I guess I could stand to ignore a few posts.

@Deepsight, my friend i have been following your posts for some time and longing to challenge your Deism position. I don't know how logical the notion of a first cause is in proving the existence of God. Also, your definition of the First Cause (which as you point out is not an old man in the sky) also has holes. The universal mind? What does that mean? Does this mind have a will, can it act, know, affect the world of people. Can it feel? If you are answering yes to all these questions, then you have a Being, a Person as believed in by Christianity or Islam. You in effect have a 'Man in the clouds' only, you have chosen not to think of him as such. You might want to read up on the philosopher Heidegger. He proposed the idea of Being that closely resembled the idea of God but he was careful not to give Being any attributes of personality or he would have fallen into the trap of theism. Unless, I am reading you wrong...what then is Deism or how does it differ from theism?

And by the way, Soyinka (from a post you commented on a year ago) gave a valid and plausible albeit short answer why he was atheist to the Christian God. It is the Judeo-Christian God as opposed to those of African religions that seeks to control and direct human actions and to tell people what to do and how to live their lives. Ogun does not do that; neither does Amadioha. So Soyinka's reply that he cannot see how a God would be responsible for the actions or inactions of seven billion people was succinct and to the point on a core difference between his religion and the big world ones.