Because a logical person is going to take a look first at the side that has 1+ billion absolutely convinced before they take a look at the side that has a select number of scientists guessing. DUCY?

I don't think so either. That is why i said compelling.

Ok - I don't think popular vote is compelling either. What makes you think it's a good guide? Most people around Jesus's time thought he was wrong - if you were alive then would you have found the anti-christian position the most compelling?

You also said the scientists were "going on theories" which you've just downgraded to "guessing". What's your criteria for determining who's absolutely convinced and who's guessing?

EDIT: Let me also echo All-In-Flynn's distaste for DUCY. Take it or leave it but, if you're actually trying to persuade anyone, such an approach makes your argument less appealing in my opinion.

Yea i might of thought it was crazy at the time, unless i was following Gods Word. I still would of done what i could to see myself.


If most people i come across tells me that Disney Land is a fun place, i am going to think of it as a fun place, instead of thinking that it blows because some scientists think it does.

I am not trying to persuade anyone that Disney Land is a fun place, just the fact that most people i come across tell me they know for a fact it is a fun place is a little more compelling then some scientists theorizing that it is not a fun place.

Absolutely convinced= Knowing as fact

Theorizing= Going on educated guess

Nope, still not Cing Y over here. Can you walk me through the logic?

I just did with the Disney Land example.

What I meant is - if you're trying to persuade people on RGT that they should believe in God it's probably best to avoid arguments along the lines of:

'You should believe in God. DUCY?'

It was unsolicited advice.
But how do you tell them apart?

Person A tells you they're absolutely convinced that there's life on Alpha Centauri. Person B tells you their educated guess is that there's no life - who do you believe?

In Gunth speak, its not the theory of gravity... its just a guess.

I wonder if Gunth has missed any logical fallacies since he's arrived?

A similar Gunth argument but more emotionally compelling?

Do you find convincing the theories... er, guesses of an intellectual seminary trained atheist like Bart Ehrman or the belief of an irrational mind like Gunth? I know its an appeal to authority but what kind of game would God be playing where the brightest and most educated tend to disbelieve but at the other intellectual end, where the Gunth's of the world reside, they look at the same evidence and see the truth. What kind of logic would it be to grant some people great minds which, seems to increase the likelihood that they would suffer. While sending the intellectually lazy to heaven? That logic would be truly Gunthic.

Well, it's not 'logic' - you should probably stop calling it that.

I have a plane to catch (probably won't be able to respond again till Tuesday) so I need to be brief. I can fix your badly broken analogy. None of the people we're talking to has actually been to Disneyland. When asked how they know it's fun, they point to the brochure. The 'scientists' have determined that the rides and other features mentioned in the brochure appear to be devices that would not work if they actually existed, since they contradict several laws of physics. Pro-funners insists that 'Disney magic' makes the rides work as advertised. It's really not difficult to see whose claims are more compelling.


But even this is indulging you a little too far. Why is it that a large number of unevidenced claims of certainty is more persuasive than a small number of evidenced claims that come with a health warning? It would probably be best if you skipped the analogies and just outlined the principle behind this.

The people were talking to have been to Disneyland.


This is not what i was doing, maybe try to persuade them to look into it a little, but it wasn't even the topic of conversation until someone decided to focus on that. I am not going to repeat the point i was trying to make again, nor am i going to provide any more examples to explain what i was saying.

I just saw this again and keep laughing at what a ridiculous self serving and trite scenario gunth had to create to make his point.

In Gunth's world, scientists are proclaiming Disneyland isn't fun, despite that most people who he comes across say otherwise. See how bad those scientists are? Of course, scientists would never make such a ridiculous claim unless the evidence suggested otherwise.

It nicely demonstrates that crappiness of his logic that to make an analogy, he has to imagine a world where scientists theorize that Disneyland isn't fun. When everyone knows it is! My goodness... it would foolish to trust scientists who can't see how fun Disneyland is! There must be a God! Allah must be real! Gunth logic wins again!

Gunth is still trying to use the argument from popularity?

I am aware how it may look like that to you.

just a little minor correction for accuracy.

Another negative that i can prove false.

A scientific theory is very far from a guess. You're confusing scientific theory with a hypothesis, which more closely describes an educated guess.

Do you have an answer to this, from earlier?

But how do you tell them apart?

Person A tells you they're absolutely convinced that there's life on Alpha Centauri. Person B tells you their educated guess is that there's no life - who do you believe?

I don't know what you mean by this.

Exactly, you can't really believe either until you check them both out for yourselves. Although the person absolutely convinced is going to be a little more convincing to me. But a person being absolutely convinced of something does not convince me. Like i said, i am not trying to use this as evidence God exists. But atheists seem to just shrug off religion because science has another idea. When the majority of the world has given religion a chance and see's something they don't. Even God Himself tells you to look into things before you make a choice.

I don't think you do this. Is it true that you havent formed a view on the creation of the universe yet? You're going to check out the views of science first (through some degree or other)?
Why? Being absolutely convinced is a function of their evaluation of their own beliefs - it doesnt say anything about the underlying truth of the claim, merely about how confident they are in making it.

EDIT: In fact i believe there is evidence that the more confident people are in making claims, the LESS likely they are to be correct.
That's not the reason - it's because there are two competing claims (where the two do contradict one another), one of which has empirical evidence and one of which doesnt.
You present this as if everyone has seen the same thing. In fact the majority of the world has given religion a chance and we all disagree about what we see. It doesnt inspire confidence that we're correct when you and I both claim to "know God" and yet disagree about what he's like and what he wants.
It's a sidetrack, but FWIW I dont consider belief (in anything) a choice.

I had way more insight into the theories of science than God's Word before i became absolutely convinced God exists. In fact that has been one of the hardest things about turning back to Him. The fact that i have to drop a huge amount of information that i considered to be true.
When i was growing up i leaned way more to the side of someone absolutely convinced cigarettes were bad and gave you cancer, then on the side of the person that said they figured they weren't all that bad. But your right this is not the case for all things.

Seem to contradict each other. An unproven theory can't really contradict anything yet. Can you provide an example of something proven to be true that contradicts God's Word? That would be proving religion false, would it not?
Do you have an example of something we disagree with regarding Him? I don't remember this being the case yet. But i don't know. If you are saying in general, your right, it is not an easy book to figure out. Not only that there are people/groups that have figured it out but go against it and fool masses. Crazy world.

What insight did you have? You speak of "just theories" as if that somehow weakens the claims of science - this doesnt seem like insight to me, to be frank, it seems like dismissal.

You speak in this thread as if science and religion are in opposition - what do you think God teaches that contradicts science?

I don't think they seem to at all - it seems to be your claim that the reason atheists reject God is because it contradicts science. I don't think this is true. (Although a case could be made that 'believing on faith' contradicts the scientific method, I dont think this is the same as contradicting the findings of science).
The theory of gravity is unproven, yet it contradicts the idea that things might float off into space someday.
I think there are a lot of things which contradict a literal reading of the bible. I dont think the bible is supposed to be read literally - I think science books teach us about nature, the bible teaches us about our relationship with God. They talk about different things, as far as I'm concerned (which is why I'm puzzled at your claim regarding the source of atheists' atheism).
I'm 100% certain () we disagree about a lot, but that isnt important - I am a heretic and only the most charitable of Americans would call me a Christian. (If you're really interested, although I consider this a tangent, one thing we probably disagree on is that if Hell exists, I think it's empty - God will forgive anyone, Hitler and Judas included. I can't see how he'd punish people for failing to be able to shake the skepticism he gave them.)

However, I was speaking in general terms, not specifically about you and I. My point is that you present as evidence for God the existence of "Billions of believers" as if they are united in their claims and the fact is they're not consistent in their beliefs at all - in fact they are often diametrically opposed on fundamental issues. Even if weight of numbers were to somehow be persuasive, the fact that those billions can't agree on basic facts about this "God" they "know" is evidence that perhaps they don't actually know anything.

Well, building of weapons comes to mind. But i understand that is a different subject and not what we are discussing.

This is what you stated:

And i responded with seemed to contradict, but now i am confused to what view you are holding because you are saying two different things here. I responded with seemed because i don't really think it contradicts, but a lot of atheists do, so obviously it does seem like it.

Also God and Jesus defied gravity, so i don't consider that a proven theory either.

Well i believe the Bible to be 100% true and science has not been able to prove otherwise.

I don't think Hell is empty, Satan definitely exists. And He definitely has followers. I do think that if Satan were to turn back to God though, he would eventually be accepted.

I am only going to say this one more time, because i am sick of repeating this:

I am not using the billions of believers as evidence of God's exsistence. I am using this fact to show that maybe these people know something since they are absolutely convinced so it may be worth looking into instead of saying nah, religion is bogus, no point.

The billion is irrelevant then if you dont think it's evidence. If one person believes something then "maybe that person knows something since they're absolutely convinced".

However, I don't expect you to keep addressing something you're not interested in. You don't seem to be making any point other than "maybe they're right" which isnt in dispute.

I don't mind talking about it but its like 5+ times now i am told i am using it as evidence that God exists, when that is not the intention.

People swear up and down they have seen ghosts, people look into it.

People swear up and down they have seen UFOs, people look into it.

I mean you got this one guy on here that is convinced there is some alien city sirius controlling us all. If he put half the amount of time/energy into finding God, he probably would.
But for some reason when it comes to religion, people just are not interested. And that main reason is because people don't like to turn away from their sins.

Come on, you can't mean atheists haven't looked into it. Most of them used to be theists.

I was raised a theist, then turned basically atheist. My theory is God does not show Himself to people that He knows are going to turn away. And He does this so that they can learn the lessons they need to learn. But the Bible does tell people what to do next, when they turn back to Him. Or maybe that 100% faith is needed, and if you are skeptic, even just a little, you aren't going to find Him.

Lets say your whole family comes to you and says they all saw a ghost in the basement. But you heard some scientist on the news saying its pretty much impossible/ highly unlikely the day before. Are you going to be more compelled to believe your family, or some scientist on the news?