no one has actually made the argument you presented in your syllogism. Some might believe both P1 and P2, but they are not arguing that it leads to the conclusion "God exists". Rather, that God exists is a presupposition which, along with other premises, leads to the conclusion that God hides her existence

Why do you believe in god ?

What is it based on?

Because God makes sense to me.


It is based off of the truth I find in scripture that directly relates to life and this world.

Why not scripture from the Lord of the Rings rather than fiction stories written 1500 years ago?

Both scriptures were written by imaginative men.

What is more impossible? A flying dragon or a female being born directly from a rib.

Yes, this implies reasons for believing, whereas you say it isnt based on proof. So which is it?
You obviously have reasons for believing in god, which you would offer up to yourself as proof of why your belief is correct.


Ye, the scripture, life, and this world all come to you via the senses.

If it was proof then I would not need faith would I? Faith is belief that is not based on proof:
"He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Sure If I had none of my senses at all it wouldn't be possible to know anything let alone god. That doesn't mean I believe in god because of my senses. They allow me to know things about god, but they aren't why I believe god is real.

First you would need to define exactly what you mean by 'God' and then perhaps an experiment could be devised.

An important point here, that confuses lots of people is that evidence of miracles is not evidence of the Christian God, it is just evidence that we are more confused about the laws of nature that we currently think we are.

Why should all the fish in the ocean turning into loves of bread imply the existence of anything like the Christian God? Really I see no connection, its about fish and bread where is the connection with the Christian God? Just because something inexplicable happens does not mean that everyone's personal God suddenly becomes true.

Even if a hundred foot giant then appears and claims he is The Christian God and he did it, why believe him? Probably some kind of hologram prank, or weird dram.

To me the Christian God as I interpret the bible can only be a group of alien prankster that are interfering in human development. So even if I were to accept the Christian God as existing, I suspect I would still not be accepting the existence of the Christian God by most Christian's perception of what that means.

Why do people keep making this mathematical error?

You can't prove it, and you cannot disprove it, and that is why it is mostly losers in this day and age who spend their time on the issue. If your child got sick, even if you were a hardcore believer, you would take the child to a doctor and get the best information to date on how to deal with it. If you prayed to God instead you might wind up in prison, like you should.

I cannot prove that God is an invisible frog on my shoulder, and you cannot disprove the claim. That is the level of intellect we are talking about. Go ahead and try to disprove that the driving force of the Universe is not an invisible frog on my shoulder. Generally speaking, things that cannot be disproved are not strong arguments.

Why is it that Mormons, and similar groups mostly go to undeveloped and ignorant places in order to spread your loser ideas? It is because they are loser thinkers and they need to find the most ignorant helpless people to spread their message.

The fear of dying, as well as the unanswerable question of first cause, creates lots of variety over the centuries. Science and biology always wins out in the end. The laws of nature have never been suspended once in world history. Nobody ever prays that a soldier might grow his arms back if he lost them at war. That tells you all you need to know.

See ya at the crossroads, sucka.

Sorry, but this is gibberish.

Dogmoon...The big questions of life like if there is a god or not are things most people don't want to discuss and don't want to think about. Perhaps some can go through their entire life without ever addressing this issue. That is the easy way out, but it will always leave a void in your soul.

Some are content with just going with the flow of life and taking a wait and see what happens when I die approach. It isn't very easy to address these issues because we are afraid if what everything we thought was true was a lie. However I have found that the truth is actually much more fulfilling than the lies of this world. The truth is real, it completes you in ways that the lies of this world can't.

One might be wondering what the hell is the truth anyways? And what are these lies I am talking about. I'll go into a little detail. We have been told since we were children from all of those around us, from the media, from our parents our friends and so forth what will make us happy.

If we could just get a better job, a better car, a bigger home, better friends, the perfect lover, that then we will finally be happy. Most people believe this is the truth and live their life to keep getting more and more things. They are looking for materialistic things to complete them. This just makes you even more miserable than you were before, because now you need even more to satisfy your hunger.

The truth however is we don't need anything in this world to be complete. Yet most people think they are unhappy because they don't have this or that. That just isn't the truth. We are all good enough right now, but most don't believe that. And that is the truth!

I think prophecies that gave specific and unequivocal information about future events or discoveries would be a good start. At least that would demonstrate access to information no contemporary human could possibly possess.

How to demonstrate the existence of the Abrahamic God is a tough one though, I mean some people would argue that the state of the world indicates that there is a omnipotent cosmic sadist at work but it seems a little thin.

Are you saying the people in the bible who had proof of God and or Jesus as God had no faith?


And what do you think about Romans 1:20? It seems for me to say belief in God requires no faith.

This needs to be corrected. When my chemistry teacher tells me that hydrochloric acid burns I do not have "faith" that he is right. He has earned my trust through a series of proofs he has previously provided. Going around acting like everything you do not personally witness is therefore faith in someone elses claims is dubious. True faith is believing in something that nobody has ever proven, by people who have never proven anything at all. I have faith that the scientists at CERN will prove several of their theories because they have a history of being right. I do not have faith that a priest will prove anything ever in his entire life.

To entertain such thoughts would have us still living in caves waiting for lightning to strike to provide us with fire. As a species of higher intellect it is perfectly plausible to completely dismiss such deluded ideas so as to steer the course of learning in a direction that yields positive results, such as building cars and airplanes.

This is a spurious assertion, emotions and historical figures have objective evidence supporting their existence.

Atheists just understand that any religion is just a law code for old time when nation where not enough evolve and had no real law applied to help society in general.

No, this is just a broad generalization, all religions are not that...especially not at their core teachings often times.

Religion has been perverted by the human mind, society, nations, etc.

I have no delusions that this will be conclusive proof for most any atheist but at least consider it with an open mind.

Former Cardiologist Pim Van Lommel discusses Near Death Experiences in cardiac arrest patients in which all brain function stops within 15 seconds of the heart stopping, therefore there should be no brain activity yet many patients after being resuscitated describe very detailed, heightened awareness, and a completely different experience of an "afterlife" while being clinically dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glKccJ5YUcg

I havent watched this yet but who's to say their experience actually happened while they were dead? Perhaps they experienced all of this in the moment they were resuscitated or 1 second before brain function ceased. From their point of view it could seem like it happened while dead, but they would have no concept of time since their brain had stopped. No different than being frozen in cryo sleep for 100 years and waking up like you just took a nap.

That is certainly possible but based on the experience they have they describe it as having no time, their entire life playing out and having the full experience of it from not only their own perspective but often from the perspective of other people that they came into contact with and sometimes they have their life replayed for them 1, 2, or 3 times total and experience it from different perspectives. I don't know how that can all happen in 1-15 seconds but I can't say it's impossible that it does.

If you want this experience almost word-for-word I would recommend you try DMT or Magic Mushrooms or LSD - in high enough quantities either of these will do.

The brain can take you to some radical mind-altering states, it is no indication of God, any more than an LSD trip of an alien abduction is an indication of aliens on earth.

This is a typical error. People confuse "clinical death" with "death", they are not the same. Clinical death refers to the when heart activity stops, death refers to the end of life.

Brain activity does not stop 15 seconds after the heart stops, this is a myth perpetuated by a misunderstanding of clinical death. The 15 second limit refers to the ceasing of easily measurable brain activity. It does not mean the brain has died, it means the person has lost consciousness. At normal temperatures you still have 2-5 minutes before vital brain functions cease.

By this I assume you mean that the conditional probability of A Christian God existing given that a miracle like event has occurred is greater than than the probability without such an event. I am not convinced this is as clear cut as you imply.

For instance the conclusion I draw from a confirmed miracle like event is that our understanding of science is serious flawed. Our methods of making predictive models from past experience is not working as expected, this will result in a reduction in the confidence that we can make any assertion about what we experience, including the existence of figures from fantasy. At least until we can create new models to encamps recent experience.

For me the slack produced by the reduction in the probability of just about anything previously believed is taken up by “something I don't understand and can't model yet” rather than A Christian God. It is possible that by careful analyses of new empirical evidence I or others like me might build up a robust model that incorporates a figure with many traits that coincide with those associated with A Christian God. Although it will be best to label it with another name to avoid confusion.

Another viewpoint might be that the probability of a typical fantasy character like The Christian God existing is so small, that say doubling it has no practical meaning. That the numbers involved are so close to zero that the use of probability theory here is an ineffective model with no empirical backing.