You got it right. An argument is a premise used to explain a belief, whether you’re specifically using it to debate someone or not.

@Bob:
Your argumentation, for that is what it is (at the minimum you meet the terms for definitions 3,4, and 5 here) doesn’t seem logical.

If we start from the logical position, sliding beneath Occam’s Razor, we begin with the premise that there is no god.

You say the Weak Nuclear Force is evidence for Him.

But I don’t understand why. Does it require a god to produce marvels? Surely gravity is at least as wonderous.

Darryl pretty much said the rest of what I wanted to say in his last post. Belief is an act of will.

I have up to three responses. They can be used as a set in the order below, or as stand alone responses depending on the situation.

1. “You do realize that it’s your religious book, not mine, right?”

I wait to see if they acknowledge this statement before continuing. Many Christians really think that non-Christians are some form of lapsed Christian that just has to be shown some bit of information that will act like magic on the non-Christian and snap them back to Jesus.

For some people, I have to assert to them that “I am not a Christian, (do you understand?)” … if they don’t get all bent out of shape and need to be calmed down, I can continue with one of the other responses.

2. Yes, I have. Twice, plus commentary. Once on my own, and once as literature as well as part of a comparative religion class.

3. I’ve read a few different religious texts. How many did you read before deciding on your religion?

The upshot for me is that, if his faith did not come about by real evidence or substantive cause to doubt his former atheism, then he shouldn’t be giving the impression that, as a physicist, he is making an argument from reason and evidence.

So those of us who used to be believers and prayed all the time and got nothing, and eventually stopped praying and came to the opinion that an interactive prayer-answering God either didn’t exist or didn’t exist for us… We should pray again, just to make sure? How about again and again and again?

The goal, Siamang, is to portray us as a bunch of quitters.

But regarding those who would only be satisfied with revelation, I said that I thought few atheists, meaning currently confirmed atheists, would choose what from the atheistic standpoint would seem a ridiculous idea, namely praying, as the place to start looking for God. The fact that they had previously prayed before becoming atheists would possibly make them even less likely to start with prayer. That’s all.

So those of us who used to be believers and prayed all the time and got nothing, and eventually stopped praying and came to the opinion that an interactive prayer-answering God either didn’t exist or didn’t exist for us… We should pray again, just to make sure? How about again and again and again?

What about me? I fit that bill. And as a result of conversations on this board and its predecessor, I did pray again. Again nothing. I have done it since then numerous times. Still nothing.

We’ll have some awful prayerful atheists around here, if the way to prove to you that we have an open mind is to keep praying all the time.

But I’m getting tired of all the times I’ve said “how high?” when a theist tells me to jump in order to prove to them that I have an open mind.

Anyway, I’m sorry if I inadvertantly unrolled the “unwelcome mat”.

Take care.

Read what I wrote upthread, David. Did you think it came off as a request for him to leave?

If so, then I totally failed what I was attempting, which was to get him off the mode of coming here and making judgements and pronouncements, and actually engage us in two-way conversation.

I notice that he didn’t respond to what I thought my main point was, which was “stop telling us what we supposedly think, and instead *ask* us.”

So it’s quite likely that he didn’t get that out of what I wrote.

Circumstantial evidence is really only permissible in sissy crap like law and social science, not in the hard stuff.

The context of my sentence was a suggestion to atheists who demand convincing evidence of God’s existence that they should specify to themselves, if they could, what that evidence would look like.

And you think we haven’t done that?

Isn’t the very idea that we’re atheists predicated on the notion that we DID in fact decide what the evidence should look like, and found that evidence lacking? You may not agree that my standards are appropriate, but, you know, I have actually thought about this. Maybe that’s a big surprise to you.

Based on my own experience, you can (without ever acknowledging it to yoursefl) decide there is simply no evidence short of direct miraculous intervention by God that would be deemed sufficient proof of God’s existence. The idea simply becomes unthinkable within the context of a totally materialist outlook. God, being supernatural, is simply defined away. So I don’t think my suggestion that atheists examine whether there is any sort of evidence that could convince them is either insulting or superfluous.

For example, you wrote:

“Are you truly open to revelation? The best way to become open to it must be through prayer, but few are the atheists who would start from that point.”

Instead of asking us if we’ve tried prayer… which is a totally relevant question… you tell us that few of us have.

Really?!?!

I think most atheists in America are former theists. Have you considered that most atheists might be atheists because they spent years of their life praying and felt no effect at all? That might be a question worth asking… after all, you’ve got a lot of atheists right here ready to answer. We’re all ears.

Let me repeat that I was not recommending that anyone demand revelation, as I think there is convincing circumstantial evidence for God. But regarding those who would only be satisfied with revelation, I said that I thought few atheists, meaning currently confirmed atheists, would choose what from the atheistic standpoint would seem a ridiculous idea, namely praying, as the place to start looking for God. The fact that they had previously prayed before becoming atheists would possibly make them even less likely to start with prayer. That’s all.

I’m not sure what your goals here are. If they are conversation, you’re failing. If they are conversion, you’re failing. If they are to convince us that you’re a deep thinker, you’re failing.

So why are you here?

Well, I had no idea I would be engaged in such a long dialog. I pointed out a post to my blog, and that provoked some responses, which I felt I should answer. Actually, you asked me if I was going to stick around or disappear right away, with the implication that you’d rather I didn’t vanish immediately. Sorry I didn’t get a chance to answer everyone. Anyone that is interested in email contact with me can go to my blog to get my address.

I would assume there are other maths besides the ones we have invented thus far–there must be.

I don’t know about “other.” I view it more as the unexplored territory of a single vast (limitless?) domain.

But, to your idea, don’t you think there’s a mighty wide chasm between thought (as in mathematical thought) and spirit?

I, of course, don’t know exactly what the relationship is between thought, spirit, and brain. It’s one of the ultimate mysteries. My point was not that mathematics as a non-material reality shed light on the question you raise, but just that the idea of a non-material reality was new to me and made me rethink my 100% materialist view of reality. To others the concept might not be that important.

We know where thoughts reside, and we know they are sensations in our material brain.

Well we know that thoughts are accompanied by brain activity. Where thoughts “reside” is beyond us in my opinion, but I think it is a spiritual realm.

If a brain dies, thinking ceases.

Not to say that’s wrong, but to take the stance of others in this thread, we don’t know anything about that, since the person who once thought can no longer communicate with us. We just know that all thought linked to activity of that brain has ceased.

We know how to alter thoughts, induce feelings and images, and how to enhance or diminish certain kinds of thoughts by manipulating the brain. How do you get from there to extrapolating a spiritual realm in which god dwells?

I wouldn’t overstate what “we know how” to do. The interesting thing about such brain stimulation experiments (the ones I have read about anyway) is that the people experiencing them are aware of what is going on (e.g. they can hear the sound they make) but they don’t feel that it is being done by themselves. So there is a personality and a will that is somehow standing above the localized brain activity. A very fascinating subject. To me, having a strong faith in God, I can only answer “I don’t know how God does it,” as I have to say to many other things, on the question of spirit and brain relationship.

Obviously it was not because of a clear understanding of this mystery that I came to believe in God. I wouldn’t say that death of the brain meaning the final end of the person is ruled out by God’s existence. I just don’t know the plan, though I have faith that all will be well, whatever the answer is.