What do believers think they know, which nobody else does??!!

I recieved another personal message from a Christian who says he wants to make an enquiry of me and what I think.
Experience has taught me that theists are not ever interested in, how thoughts are formed in, or what evidence is available to, the minds of people who don't share their own particular faith based belief, so I generally pass them up.
However, it's been a long time since I made a blog entry, and if our friend here, is willing to maintain any exchange of opinion, it might be an interesting insight into what it takes to believe in gods - Let's see where it takes us:



"Question
Hi Tommy,

I hope everything is going well for you. I have a question for you because I am honestly curious. I am a Christian, and have done quite a bit of research into why I believe in God. I have not found inconsistency so far in my search. In my experience so far, while I've met plenty of other people who claim to be Christians but do a poor job of representing it for whatever the reason may be, I have yet to meet someone who is opposed who has more backing his argument than flawed reasoning ultimately grounded in strong feelings. Whether indifferent or hostile, I see that common thread. I am curious if you have more to offer than that. With that said, if you know something that I don't then I ask you to share it with me

I saw some comments you posted on a video of Ravi Zacharias in which you talked about flaws in his reasoning. What I've heard so far from him makes sense, so I'm curious. What flaws you are talking about?
Sent to:tobytrim




Hi Falcon85,

First of all, thank you for your courteously worded mail asking for an explanation of things you have read from me elsewhere.
(Incidentally, I usually do explain my comments better than I did with poor old Ravi here -so I apologise for the unqualified ad homs on him, if you're a fan. However Ravi's fallacies are like YE creationism arguments - either obviously silly or requiring of a very long-winded debunking!).

That said, I generally make it a policy to NOT to enter into private mail correspondence with Christians (especially biblical literalists, whom I deem to have abandoned the use of reason, and CERTAINLY empirical evidence).This is simply because, discussing a premise with someone,who either can't understand why he is wrong, or thinks he can stay right by refusing to concede his mistaken reasoning, is a futile thing to do .
Frankly, I've been mulling over whether to respond to you at all, even to explain why I won't respond. My reasons for thinking discussion pointless, in your case, are as follows:

1) Even as Christian apologists go, Ravi is very definitely an intellectual lightweight (I’ll explain further if we do enter into discussion).
Compared to the people he very badly mirrors, such as C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga (on the problem of evil) or even W.L. Craig (who relies on pure sophistry) who, in turn, plagiarise and misrepresent much more clever men, (who themselves have become outdated), Ravi's reasoning is almost as laughable as the like of Ray Comfort et al.
You have said that you are convinced by his argument, which suggests, to me, that you are not a deep thinker
( Please don't confuse that with an assessment of your intellect - I simply mean you haven't probed deeply enough into why you think one of the many definitions of the Christian god might be a reality)

2) Let me quote what you said to me almost as an opening statement :

"I am a Christian, and have done quite a bit of research into why I believe in God."

Because you see nothing illogical in that statement, is reason enough not to bother making ANY response to you. Do you see what's wrong with it?
Most rationalists, philosophers and critical thinkers would dismiss your abilities to recognise truth from fiction the second you said it!
You haven't decided to believe something because of your research into what evidence or reason there is to believe it. You research into why you believe it ALREADY, BEFORE you had actually considered any evidence that it could possibly be true!

3) You say you haven't found any inconsistency in what you believe to be "God"?
Are you sure of what you think god is?
Have you a clear idea, in your head, as to what you believe actually exists as a real and sentient being?
Do you have a clear idea of what "existence" is for that matter?
Have you truly put your faith in a god that has been revealed to you somehow?
Did he phone you up? Write to you? Maybe speak to you?
I think, if you rationally, and particularly with honesty, review your earliest experience of your "relationship with God", you will have to admit that your "faith" is in the words emotional textual interpretations of other people.
They may be people you have loved and respected from your earliest memory, but nonetheless flawed human beings, whom you believe on the pure authority of THEIR words, which they themselves heard anecdotally and they believe on the same willing gullibility they call "faith".
In any case, If you ask an atheist why he doesn't believe in something specifically you believe in without evidence, and with absolutely NOTHING to observably distinguish it from pure fantasy, don't you think YOU should be the one to identify, define and describe EXACTLY what it is you want to say it is illogical NOT to believe in, and logical to say, with certainty DOES exist?
Leaving aside the different beliefs concerning the Hebrew god, there are many conflicting definitions of the Christian god alone. This is observable in that there are 1000's of denominations of Christianity. Which one do you say it is wrong not to believe in?
Which brings me back to Ravi!! I'll save the specifics till later, but again, in one of his "problem of evil" arguments (the one he drew from Plantinga) he relies on evil being the freely willed whimsical act of human beings).
In the other (borrowed from C.S. Lewis) it is an objective "noun", a "thing" or personification, either authored by god himself, or transcendent even of "god's" omnipotence.
If you want me to tell you what is wrong with Ravi's reasoning, you would have to let me know which of these obviously paradoxical sources and definitions of "evil" you opt for, and which of his arguments you've heard which convinced you?

4) On further investigations I find that you seem to be, indeed, a biblical literalist?
On one of your video comments, in support of the Genesis flood you actually argued that god, being omnipotent, could have made all those things happen which defied the laws of nature.
To hold this kind of boxed in ad hoc thinking, to me, demonstrates an observable detachment from both the laws of logic and the rules of empirical evidence! - So why bother, if my knowledge of the universe comes purely from what can be reasoned philosophically, inductively and deductively, and from what can be testably observed?
I promised myself I wouldn't make any logical, scientific, philosophical or theological arguments till I ascertained EXACTLY what it is you say you believe as truth, of what you define as "God" or "existence".
- However, I am compelled to ask: -
Do you believe that "God" also produced all the physical, biological, geological, and medical evidence (270,000 peer review observations in PubMed alone - millions of data points) that a global flood, nor the Genesis creation, never happened according to our current TESTABLE understanding of science?

As you can see, I have already given you a lot of time, on what promises to be a pointless debate, merely to explain why it is pointless!
I justified this, otherwise timewasting exercise, to myself, by deciding to use my response your enquiry as a new blog entry on my long neglected web-blog called "The Rush of Reason" -

If I do decide to post this, and you would like the link to this particular entry let me know.
In case all this long rant hasn't made my position clear let me use the last paragraph or two, to try to nutshell it all:

I don't believe in gods, or any other supernatural entities, because they are other peoples beliefs which are rarely clearly defined or even understood be the person claiming their existence. No definition ever made to me of one, has ever met the standards of evidence and logic used every day, in ever aspects of our lives, including those relied on by "believers", to ascertain what is true.
Moreover, and I think without exception, no definition has ever been offered to me which even COULD exist, as the are all logically paradoxical. (A square circle)
If you would care to explain what you are calling "God", I will be happy to try and show you why this is the case with yours too.



Regards,
Tommy.