Why should God be any more believable than the Tooth Fairy?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

This comes pretty close to what I was talking about in my first post in this thread. That religious people have "evidence" for their faith in the form of religious experiences.

Are these religious experiences subjective? Yes. Does a person of Christian faith interpret it as a sign from a Christian god? Yes. Does a person of Islamic faith interpret is as a sign from Allah? Yes. Does a person of no religious believes whatsoever interpret it in non-religious way? Probably yes. Therefore we can't talk about religious experiences with that guy, maybe we can use the word mystical experience.

Do you claim that the source of these mystical experiences is God? Is it the Christian God? Or are all the gods from every religion basically the same, all different interpretations of the universal God of Love? If so, isn't every religion right? And if not, why is this one particular religion correct and others are not if they all are based on the same mystical experience?

Why are these mystical experiences products of God? It surely can be something completely different, right? It can be a product of our minds, yes? Well do you think that our minds are a product of God? And if so, do you believe that because of the mystical experience you had? And if so, do you see why we're running in circles here and that God cannot be proved or disproved? So we must all be agnostic about God, right? And some agnostic people just believe in God because of that mystical experience and some people do not because they interpret those mystical experiences differently?

I would really appreciate answers to this especially from PairTheBoard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. I kind of think that what you mentioned is precisely the reason that comparing the tooth fairy to the idea of God is ridiculous. People have these "experiences" or whatever you want to call them, people attribute them to God. Nobody attributes them to the tooth fairy. People believe (rightly or wrongly) that "God has spoken to them". Now if we want to talk about all the anthropomorphic qualities of God, that's a different question.

With regard to your questions, I have no idea what PTB will answer, but I'm curious. I have a feeling he won't answer them directly.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God, on the other hand, is so obvious it's not even funny.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to me. I think you're "funny".

[ QUOTE ]
And there are no inconsistencies in the bible, despite thousands of years of people trying to find them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you been living under a rock, or what?

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't understand why atheists like you are so hateful and bigotted and stupid and sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so sad. There are few groups of people on this planet that are more hateful, bigotted, stupid, and sinful than Christians.

[ QUOTE ]
But I love you, and Jesus does too.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love you too.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't think it was that subtle.

[KUJustin]

Didn't read the thread, but I think this questions rubs Christians about the same way that hearing "Because God said so" does to an atheist in a debate. And for fairly similar reasons.

Treating the question seriously (if that's possible), I think that an atheist will generally respond that the difference has to do with need/want from people whereas the believer will put the difference on reason/evidence/experience. However this is kind of obvious because to the atheist the evidence is very compelling and to the Christian need/want aren't usually the primary reasons for belief or even for walking with God (though they probably should be for the latter).

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
i didn't think it was that subtle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Sephus, my brain is fried today. Can you tell me which of the eight or so definitions of "subtle" you're using here? I'm lost.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i didn't think it was that subtle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Sephus, my brain is fried today. Can you tell me which of the eight or so definitions of "subtle" you're using here? I'm lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

arahant was spoofing.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
And if so, do you see why we're running in circles here and that God cannot be proved or disproved?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming proof of anything. But people were saying things that didn't make sense. As far as I could tell, they were saying that Religious experiences must be bogus because God doesn't exist. Therefore, since religious experiences are bogus, God must be the fantasy spun by people unable to accept the unknown. People saying that are just making a Proclamation and dressing it up in an argument whose conclusion is its premise. My point here is a point of logic. That's all.

PairTheBoard

[Archon_Wing]

Soul > Quarters. Well, depends on your belief system.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i didn't think it was that subtle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Sephus, my brain is fried today. Can you tell me which of the eight or so definitions of "subtle" you're using here? I'm lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

arahant was spoofing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sad thing is that it's hard to tell, since there are many that would be serious saying something like that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent beings create model universes all the time, which could lead one to believe it to be a reasonable way for a universe like ours to come into existence. At least a more reasonable way than "it came from nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
More satisfying? Yes, if you don't think too deeply. More reasonable? No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Accepting that a universe like ours simply appeared from nothing is not reasonable, Phil. It's the point at which an otherwise reasonable person gives up and admits "it's all beyond me," which is honest but by no means the last word in reasonable thoughts on the matter. See, for example:

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html

and especially:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0011122

[bunny]

The difference is the feeling of a personal, real interaction with God. I still experience it and struggle with accounting for it. I vacillate between it's God offering a relationship with me and it's a mental construct arising materialistically from a host of different factors in my personality.

The fact that you cant distinguish between them doesnt mean there's no distinction. This "God is a unicorn/interstellar teaport/tooth fairy/etc etc" argument just excludes that feature of the God belief that the others dont have then says "See? They're all the same."

Luckyme's objection (as usual) is much more subtle and powerful. It at least speaks to what a believer actually presents as his justification for belief.