Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I will never go back to Christianity

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The people that argue from faith
1. We are rational and emotional creatures. However, emotion leaves us no objective means of settling disputes. It is only through rationality and evidence that you can "get someone on your side". Faith is nothing.

2. You who do as you are told without question can be manipulated into believing anything. You say that your parents taught you ___ and the Bible says blank, but you draw a blank when asked what makes you sure they're right.

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

2. Logic is not absolute. As far as what humans perceive and understand, logic is objective. However, as we go beyond that, there is a necessity to "justify the truth of logic". In ordinary discourse, we don't ever reach this level so logic is a valid presumption. However, the theists that appeal to transcendence escape that barrier. Objectively, logic has to be proven correct (i.e will A really always equal A?)....and there is no way to prove logic.

The people that argue from morality
1. You feel anger at the people who kill and rape and plunder. They deserve something torturous and cruel in return right? However, life isn't that simple that people are just "evil". So and so is "evil" should never be a good explanation for you. There are factors that determine a person's actions. There may be no such thing as free will.

2. Where did morality come from? Surely you don't think you were born knowing it was wrong to steal?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

2. Logic is not absolute. As far as what humans perceive and understand, logic is objective. However, as we go beyond that, there is a necessity to "justify the truth of logic". In ordinary discourse, we don't ever reach this level so logic is a valid presumption. However, the theists that appeal to transcendence escape that barrier. Objectively, logic has to be proven correct (i.e will A really always equal A?)....and there is no way to prove logic.

While I agree with your sentiment, it's sort of disingenuous to argue on the one hand that we can't justify belief in God because so and so and thus utilizing logic while at the same time utilizing it in your critique. I don't mean to say that it's illogical (even though it is, but that wouldn't be a sound critique), I just mean you're clearly being inconsistent in your application of the fact that logic isn't objectively justified.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 11:31:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@social, I think you misinterpreted his intention here. I don't see this as an attempt to undermine or prove Christianity false but, rather, he is outlining the barriers to his ever accepting it as true.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 11:36:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 11:31:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
@social, I think you misinterpreted his intention here. I don't see this as an attempt to undermine or prove Christianity false but, rather, he is outlining the barriers to his ever accepting it as true.

His post appears to posit truth value in his contentions though. For instance, on faith he argues that it's not a reliable way to arrive at the actual truth and so on. His barriers to belief seem to be predicated on truth value themselves.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 11:39:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 11:36:50 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:31:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
@social, I think you misinterpreted his intention here. I don't see this as an attempt to undermine or prove Christianity false but, rather, he is outlining the barriers to his ever accepting it as true.

His post appears to posit truth value in his contentions though. For instance, on faith he argues that it's not a reliable way to arrive at the actual truth and so on. His barriers to belief seem to be predicated on truth value themselves.

Saying that a method is unreliable isn't the same as saying that conclusions derived from that method are false. Indeed, if that was the case then the method would cease being unreliable since you could simply take the negation of its conclusions.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 11:59:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

2. Logic is not absolute. As far as what humans perceive and understand, logic is objective. However, as we go beyond that, there is a necessity to "justify the truth of logic". In ordinary discourse, we don't ever reach this level so logic is a valid presumption. However, the theists that appeal to transcendence escape that barrier. Objectively, logic has to be proven correct (i.e will A really always equal A?)....and there is no way to prove logic.

While I agree with your sentiment, it's sort of disingenuous to argue on the one hand that we can't justify belief in God because so and so and thus utilizing logic while at the same time utilizing it in your critique. I don't mean to say that it's illogical (even though it is, but that wouldn't be a sound critique), I just mean you're clearly being inconsistent in your application of the fact that logic isn't objectively justified.

I found this reply to be powerful and insightful. I am glad to have read it.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:55:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

While it's NOT actually self-evidence, the most you could possibly prove by the fact that universe exists would be a deistic God. Though I assume you're a Christian right?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:56:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

I agree, I believe in God, but not religion. But there are plenty who don't believe in God, and it really isn't that obvious to them. I know plenty of atheists, and I know at least some of them geniunely don't believe in God. They aren't denying his existence, they don't believe, because it isn't obvious. That's why it's faith, not fact.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:33:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

I don't find that "obvious". And in order to make me think otherwise, you'd have to debate me or give me good reasons. But if you have to do this to make me believe, then I don't see how was it "obvious" to me. I don't see God's existence in many things theists do, but that doesn't mean I "refuse" to see the obvious.

If a theist sees a beautiful landscape and says "This is obviously God's work", am I refusing to believe the obvious by not finding it such? Why should I find what he considers obvious obvious?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:25:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it.

And maybe religion is just a crutch for people who can't face reality?

If that felt like a slap in the face, then you know how it felt for me to read what you wrote.

I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

Why do you think the rest of the universe couldn't exist unless god existed?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 6:17:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

Explain how you refuse to see something that is obvious?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:59:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 6:17:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

Explain how you refuse to see something that is obvious?

Example:
Just because I drink 6+ beers a day DOES NOT mean I am an alcoholic. After all I weigh 210! (I even added a positive reinforcement to deny the obvious).

Denialism is all about picking a belief system due to preferentially biased outcome. Actuality is irrelevant.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:04:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:59:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Example:
Just because I drink 6+ beers a day DOES NOT mean I am an alcoholic. After all I weigh 210! (I even added a positive reinforcement to deny the obvious).

Denialism is all about picking a belief system due to preferentially biased outcome. Actuality is irrelevant.

Soooo...basically you're saying that Atheists are atheists because they deliberately don't want to believe in God.

You do understand that that's hopelessly false right?...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:09:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I may be so honest, I became an atheist almost solely on the Problem of Evil. And that's probably what will keep me from being a Christian ever again. I know it's a many-times refuted problem, but it feels so deep and genuine to me that I just can't shake it.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 9:20:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
The people that argue from faith
1. We are rational and emotional creatures. However, emotion leaves us no objective means of settling disputes. It is only through rationality and evidence that you can "get someone on your side". Faith is nothing.

2. You who do as you are told without question can be manipulated into believing anything. You say that your parents taught you ___ and the Bible says blank, but you draw a blank when asked what makes you sure they're right.



The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

How on earth does it logically follow that because we can logically affirm the existence of God we may not necessarily need to know God exits? And let's say we don't need to know God exists, how does this affirm atheism?

2. Logic is not absolute. As far as what humans perceive and understand, logic is objective. However, as we go beyond that, there is a necessity to "justify the truth of logic". In ordinary discourse, we don't ever reach this level so logic is a valid presumption. However, the theists that appeal to transcendence escape that barrier. Objectively, logic has to be proven correct (i.e will A really always equal A?)....and there is no way to prove logic.

I'd say that at the point where you have to abandon logic in order to maintain a position, you've gone off the deep end.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 9:23:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 8:09:58 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
If I may be so honest, I became an atheist almost solely on the Problem of Evil. And that's probably what will keep me from being a Christian ever again. I know it's a many-times refuted problem, but it feels so deep and genuine to me that I just can't shake it.

And that, my friend, is the essence of belief. You don't believe because of evidence, or lack of evidence. You believe what you want to believe. That's how it works. There's no denying.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 9:27:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:59:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/24/2012 6:17:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

Explain how you refuse to see something that is obvious?

Example:
Just because I drink 6+ beers a day DOES NOT mean I am an alcoholic. After all I weigh 210! (I even added a positive reinforcement to deny the obvious).

Denialism is all about picking a belief system due to preferentially biased outcome. Actuality is irrelevant.

And what about people that merely remained the atheist they were born as?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 9:34:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
The people that argue from faith
1. We are rational and emotional creatures. However, emotion leaves us no objective means of settling disputes. It is only through rationality and evidence that you can "get someone on your side". Faith is nothing.

2. You who do as you are told without question can be manipulated into believing anything. You say that your parents taught you ___ and the Bible says blank, but you draw a blank when asked what makes you sure they're right.



The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

2. Logic is not absolute. As far as what humans perceive and understand, logic is objective. However, as we go beyond that, there is a necessity to "justify the truth of logic". In ordinary discourse, we don't ever reach this level so logic is a valid presumption. However, the theists that appeal to transcendence escape that barrier. Objectively, logic has to be proven correct (i.e will A really always equal A?)....and there is no way to prove logic.



The people that argue from morality
1. You feel anger at the people who kill and rape and plunder. They deserve something torturous and cruel in return right? However, life isn't that simple that people are just "evil". So and so is "evil" should never be a good explanation for you. There are factors that determine a person's actions. There may be no such thing as free will.

2. Where did morality come from? Surely you don't think you were born knowing it was wrong to steal?

I must say these are highly weak reasons for rejecting the possibility of eternal significance. In fact even if we grant you the truth of both 1-2s, it still wouldn't follow that Christianity is false.

Regarding Faith.1, emotion is said to be cause by an immediate experience of God, not cause such an experience. But nevertheless such an experience is grounded as a properly basic belief, to that it can't be proven or disprove by anything more basic: rather it's veridical for the person who actually has it, wholly apart from arguments & evidence.

Just because a person falsely claims an experience of God, doesn't mean my true experience is false. The best we can do is find common ground, and use logic & reason to decipher which experience is more true.

Regarding Faith.2, who in my church tells me what to do? Who's leading me around? Who's swaying MY mind? I just spoke of an immediate experience of God, one of which that only I am personally aware. How can a pastor even remotely stimulate such a brainwashing? Especially considering I've had my experience long before I even stepped foot in a church? It's good to come to a conclusion by yourself, but what makes you think the said parents were wrong?

Regarding Logic.1, complicated doesn't imply false. In fact the way most people come to the knowledge of God (through the instigation of the the immediate experience of him along with forming the belief in the right context) is not through arguments & evidence, but rather an obvious experience when they turn to God... how is this road even remotely complicated? ... I think you're making it complicated enough by your preference of non-theism.

Regarding Logic.2, I can't believe you're using logic to make an absolute statement about logic, how circular and bizarre. The justification of the reliability of logic is simply that they are too properly basic & self-evident. Hey, kind of like the experience of God is for me!

The theist agrees that logic is a valid assumption. But why think on atheism that our cognitive faculties aligned with such concepts with are the truths for everyone... it's almost as if this mysterious realm of logic anticipated our arrival... spoooooky.

Regarding Morality.1, what sort of ritalin tells you we're determined and not just influenced by factors? I'd love to know what you know. People who desire to seek happiness in an unjust way will never want to change to seeking happiness in a just way. This is an immoral life-style that God wants nothing to do with other than to save us from it.

Regarding Morality.2, if objective moral values are gradually discovered rather than invented, then well that does nothing to undermine their objectivity. But if such morals ARE truly objective (which is how we perceive them in our moral experience), then such imperatives necessarily require an objective law-giver. Simply put, objective moral prescriptions require an objective moral prescriber.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 9:37:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 9:27:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:59:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/24/2012 6:17:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

Explain how you refuse to see something that is obvious?

Example:
Just because I drink 6+ beers a day DOES NOT mean I am an alcoholic. After all I weigh 210! (I even added a positive reinforcement to deny the obvious).

Denialism is all about picking a belief system due to preferentially biased outcome. Actuality is irrelevant.

And what about people that merely remained the atheist they were born as?

Nice, ya redefined the philosophical denial of theism to the phycological lack of theism. Sort of irrelevant to the issue bud. We're concerned with the former.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 9:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 9:37:35 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/24/2012 9:27:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:59:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/24/2012 6:17:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

Explain how you refuse to see something that is obvious?

Example:
Just because I drink 6+ beers a day DOES NOT mean I am an alcoholic. After all I weigh 210! (I even added a positive reinforcement to deny the obvious).

Denialism is all about picking a belief system due to preferentially biased outcome. Actuality is irrelevant.

And what about people that merely remained the atheist they were born as?

Nice, ya redefined the philosophical denial of theism to the phycological lack of theism. Sort of irrelevant to the issue bud. We're concerned with the former.

I'm addressing the claim that God is obvious to me, but I just refuse to accept it. Can you justify this assertion? Of not, then you aren't really aware of the issue at hand, are you?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 11:25:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 9:34:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

I must say these are highly weak reasons for rejecting the possibility of eternal significance. In fact even if we grant you the truth of both 1-2s, it still wouldn't follow that Christianity is false.

Regarding Faith.1, emotion is said to be cause by an immediate experience of God, not cause such an experience. But nevertheless such an experience is grounded as a properly basic belief, to that it can't be proven or disprove by anything more basic: rather it's veridical for the person who actually has it, wholly apart from arguments & evidence.

Just because a person falsely claims an experience of God, doesn't mean my true experience is false. The best we can do is find common ground, and use logic & reason to decipher which experience is more true.

Regarding Faith.2, who in my church tells me what to do? Who's leading me around? Who's swaying MY mind? I just spoke of an immediate experience of God, one of which that only I am personally aware. How can a pastor even remotely stimulate such a brainwashing? Especially considering I've had my experience long before I even stepped foot in a church? It's good to come to a conclusion by yourself, but what makes you think the said parents were wrong?

Regarding Logic.1, complicated doesn't imply false. In fact the way most people come to the knowledge of God (through the instigation of the the immediate experience of him along with forming the belief in the right context) is not through arguments & evidence, but rather an obvious experience when they turn to God... how is this road even remotely complicated? ... I think you're making it complicated enough by your preference of non-theism.

Regarding Logic.2, I can't believe you're using logic to make an absolute statement about logic, how circular and bizarre. The justification of the reliability of logic is simply that they are too properly basic & self-evident. Hey, kind of like the experience of God is for me!

The theist agrees that logic is a valid assumption. But why think on atheism that our cognitive faculties aligned with such concepts with are the truths for everyone... it's almost as if this mysterious realm of logic anticipated our arrival... spoooooky.

Regarding Morality.1, what sort of ritalin tells you we're determined and not just influenced by factors? I'd love to know what you know. People who desire to seek happiness in an unjust way will never want to change to seeking happiness in a just way. This is an immoral life-style that God wants nothing to do with other than to save us from it.

Regarding Morality.2, if objective moral values are gradually discovered rather than invented, then well that does nothing to undermine their objectivity. But if such morals ARE truly objective (which is how we perceive them in our moral experience), then such imperatives necessarily require an objective law-giver. Simply put, objective moral prescriptions require an objective moral prescriber.

I've learned,..after taking so many of your posts with seriousness and gravity like you were telling something that would be helpful,....that I'm wasting my time. Your argument is a glorified leap of faith shrouded in bravado.

Experience with God,...really. And I have never seen you, ever even attempt to justify objective morality, or defeat determinism without dismissing it instead.

Also, I'm completely aware that complicated =/= false. I was arguing that complicated = difficult. So if it is so difficult why must we even believe in God? Why can't we stay agnostic?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 7:21:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 9:23:08 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/24/2012 8:09:58 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
If I may be so honest, I became an atheist almost solely on the Problem of Evil. And that's probably what will keep me from being a Christian ever again. I know it's a many-times refuted problem, but it feels so deep and genuine to me that I just can't shake it.

And that, my friend, is the essence of belief. You don't believe because of evidence, or lack of evidence. You believe what you want to believe. That's how it works. There's no denying.

Oh-ho-ho-ho, no.

Perhaps I should amend my statement. I became atheistic on the PoE. However, I stay there because of the lack of evidence/evidence/whatever.

I said I could never go back to CHRISTIANITY on the PoE. I have considered and am considering other types of theism (such as deism etc.), and other types of spirituality (such as Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, etc.). If one draws me, and provides enough of a logical push, I'll take it up.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 8:30:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 9:39:22 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 9:37:35 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/24/2012 9:27:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:59:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/24/2012 6:17:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:53:31 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:44:24 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

This.

I've been thinking this for months. If God really and truly revealed himself to us, wouldn't it be more obvious than it supposedly is? Why doesn't God simply reveal himself as he supposedly used to do? Hmm....

Maybe God's existence *is* obvious, people just refuse to see it. I believe that it's quite obvious God exists because the universe could not possibly exist unless God does.

Explain how you refuse to see something that is obvious?

Example:
Just because I drink 6+ beers a day DOES NOT mean I am an alcoholic. After all I weigh 210! (I even added a positive reinforcement to deny the obvious).

Denialism is all about picking a belief system due to preferentially biased outcome. Actuality is irrelevant.

And what about people that merely remained the atheist they were born as?

Nice, ya redefined the philosophical denial of theism to the phycological lack of theism. Sort of irrelevant to the issue bud. We're concerned with the former.

I'm addressing the claim that God is obvious to me, but I just refuse to accept it. Can you justify this assertion? Of not, then you aren't really aware of the issue at hand, are you?

There's ways to know theism to be true & ways to show theism to be true. Christianity, anyways, is such that it's a knowledge by aquaintence first & foremost; which is how I know Christianity to be true.

But showing Christianity to be true apparently involves arguments which, if successful, concludes with knowledge of God by description.

The project of Natural Theology therefore justifies the claim, "God exists."

So it does seem I'm able to justify my properly basic, knowledge by aquaintence. I guess then by your criteria I am indeed "aware of the issue at hand."
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 8:44:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 11:25:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 9:34:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

I must say these are highly weak reasons for rejecting the possibility of eternal significance. In fact even if we grant you the truth of both 1-2s, it still wouldn't follow that Christianity is false.

Regarding Faith.1, emotion is said to be cause by an immediate experience of God, not cause such an experience. But nevertheless such an experience is grounded as a properly basic belief, to that it can't be proven or disprove by anything more basic: rather it's veridical for the person who actually has it, wholly apart from arguments & evidence.

Just because a person falsely claims an experience of God, doesn't mean my true experience is false. The best we can do is find common ground, and use logic & reason to decipher which experience is more true.

Regarding Faith.2, who in my church tells me what to do? Who's leading me around? Who's swaying MY mind? I just spoke of an immediate experience of God, one of which that only I am personally aware. How can a pastor even remotely stimulate such a brainwashing? Especially considering I've had my experience long before I even stepped foot in a church? It's good to come to a conclusion by yourself, but what makes you think the said parents were wrong?

Regarding Logic.1, complicated doesn't imply false. In fact the way most people come to the knowledge of God (through the instigation of the the immediate experience of him along with forming the belief in the right context) is not through arguments & evidence, but rather an obvious experience when they turn to God... how is this road even remotely complicated? ... I think you're making it complicated enough by your preference of non-theism.

Regarding Logic.2, I can't believe you're using logic to make an absolute statement about logic, how circular and bizarre. The justification of the reliability of logic is simply that they are too properly basic & self-evident. Hey, kind of like the experience of God is for me!

The theist agrees that logic is a valid assumption. But why think on atheism that our cognitive faculties aligned with such concepts with are the truths for everyone... it's almost as if this mysterious realm of logic anticipated our arrival... spoooooky.

Regarding Morality.1, what sort of ritalin tells you we're determined and not just influenced by factors? I'd love to know what you know. People who desire to seek happiness in an unjust way will never want to change to seeking happiness in a just way. This is an immoral life-style that God wants nothing to do with other than to save us from it.

Regarding Morality.2, if objective moral values are gradually discovered rather than invented, then well that does nothing to undermine their objectivity. But if such morals ARE truly objective (which is how we perceive them in our moral experience), then such imperatives necessarily require an objective law-giver. Simply put, objective moral prescriptions require an objective moral prescriber.

I've learned,..after taking so many of your posts with seriousness and gravity like you were telling something that would be helpful,....that I'm wasting my time. Your argument is a glorified leap of faith shrouded in bravado.

Sounds as emotional as what you claim to be refuting.

Experience with God,...really.

Yes, unfortunately it's such that only I can have my own experience. You can have one too!

And I have never seen you, ever even attempt to justify objective morality, or defeat determinism without dismissing it instead.

In moral experience we apprehend a realm of objective morality just like in our sensory experience we apprehend a realm of the external world so that not only is the reality of objective morals on a par with the reality of the external world, but also that entails that any argument made for moral nihilism will involve premises less obvious than the truth of the objectivity of morals.

Literally, if you doubt that it's wrong in all possible worlds to torture a child for fun, then you ought to doubt that you have a head.

^how's that for an argument?

And good luck with determinism... you'll need it with me.

Also, I'm completely aware that complicated =/= false.

You're welcome.

I was arguing that complicated = difficult.

Boohoo?

So if it is so difficult why must we even believe in God? Why can't we stay agnostic?

Isn't this the line of thought atheists hate to hear from Christians? I believe the tide in the intellectual war is turning if this is presented as an argument for non-theism!

You'll remain agnostic if the scales for & against theism are even and you DON'T have a preference for either. But given the high existential virtue of Christianity at least, it would seem that insofar as Christianity remains coherent & reasonable, then existential preference tips the scales in favor of theism.

Since by the very nature of the case an agnostic will admit he doesn't know, he then must weigh his existential options carefully.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:27:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

Not to sound simplistic but God wants you to have faith. If God made appearences everywhere then faith is out the window. Its God asking "how much do you believe?" Why does God want it that way? Who knows! I may be off on this theory but Ive heard it presented a fair number of times. BTW,what could God want that He doesnt already have (or access to )??
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 9:33:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:27:04 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:37:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:29:47 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 11:19:50 AM, 000ike wrote:

The people that argue from logic
1. Often these arguments are philosophically dense and complicated. They command a higher order of thinking, that, to be frank, will escape the vast majority of people. So, through the act of logically reaching God, you open the question of, do we even need to know God exists?

That doesn't say much about whether the logic is correct. Basically all but the most basic logic is dense and complicated. That also says nothing of whether the conclusions themselves are true or not. Also, I don't really understand your point about not needing to know God exists. Obviously we don't need to know anything. We just generally value knowledge and correctly knowing the facts of the world. If it turns out God exists then by our general value of knowledge we would WANT to know even if we have to wade through pesky logic to find out.

It isn't about the truth. It's about the consequences of not finding the truth. If God wants humans to acknowledge his existence, then why would he design a universe with so much "misleading" evidence to the contrary? Why would God make it so difficult to use logic to find him?...while simultaneously making us logical creatures that use rationality as a means of arguing and understanding things. God wants something and is preventing himself from having it.

Not to sound simplistic but God wants you to have faith. If God made appearences everywhere then faith is out the window. Its God asking "how much do you believe?" Why does God want it that way? Who knows! I may be off on this theory but Ive heard it presented a fair number of times. BTW,what could God want that He doesnt already have (or access to )??

Perhaps he caused creation with free agents to have them make a choice of either his creation or Him... Girls look good, & so does money. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.