Answer for: Please list something that exists?
#6 God
| 
39 Comments
"I am in no doubt: I feel as certain of the existence of God as I am about my own existence. God is a logically required being; I am not! However, my confidence is not based on a scientific experiment in a laboratory or on a brilliantly deduced argument from a philosopher. My convictions are the result of the above combination of factors. Reason (inductive and deductive), faith, experience, revelation, history, conscience, and intuition all play a part. 'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen,' said C.S. Lewis, 'not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.' While conclusive philosophic 'proof' may be forever out of reach, being convinced of God's existence is not." -- http://www.rzim.org/.../Default.aspx
Comments |
Leave a comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
From the same article:
"Now, obviously, we cannot show that there is a known entity greater or further back than God from which He can be deduced--the very idea is a contradiction because God is the name we give to an ultimate being who is logically required. He is therefore the necessary cause and source of all things. So proving the existence of God deductively is impossible. Equally, proving God does not exist is also impossible."
Confirmation bias goes both ways.
Your quote shows no such thing, try again.
From the Wikipedia article on confirmation bias:
"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs."
However, in this case we are dealing with something that cannot be deductively proven or disproven (as I was trying to convey through that quote in my last comment). So what is left? Induction. Like you said in another thread, "Even if we cannot get our hands on evidence for pre-big bang cosmology we can still examine the physical world and create likely hypothesis." Exactly. The fact that some people may be biased towards one hypothesis or the other does not help or hurt either one.
Quite a few people on both sides of the isle would tell you they have used both deduction and induction to come to a conclusion about god's existence.
Not to mention that skepticism requires that a person take the stance of non-belief until that claim can be proven true or false.
I'm just standing here waiting.
"Quite a few people on both sides of the isle would tell you they have used both deduction and induction to come to a conclusion about god's existence."
...well they'd be wrong, wouldn't they?
"Not to mention that skepticism requires that a person take the stance of non-belief until that claim can be proven true or false."
...or proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
"I'm just standing here waiting."
http://www.google.com/products?q=chair
Can't have it both ways. ;)
What do you mean?
You claim god's existence is unanswerable but then say you're convinced by logic, deduction, and beyond a reasonable doubt.
I didn't say deduction. I'm convinced (using inductive logic) beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. Though I cannot be absolutely certain, I can conclude that it is highly probable. http://grupthink.com/comment/47092
And yet you say, "but they'd be wrong wouldn't they". Either god is provable/disprovable or not, let's not be moving goal posts here.
I've come to the conclusion that he, in all probability, does not exist. I highly doubt you gave the question rigorous thought. You gave the defense...some...thought, but like i said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
This is pointless.
"And yet you say, 'but they'd be wrong wouldn't they'. Either god is provable/disprovable or not, let's not be moving goal posts here."
...wrong about the fact that they used deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion, not wrong about the conclusion itself.
"I highly doubt you gave the question rigorous thought. You gave the defense...some...thought, but like i said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias "
...right back at ya.
"This is pointless."
...well you started it :P
Like I said, this is pointless. You're a faith head who can't see outside his own dogma and I've got better things to do then school you on logic 101.
Okay Casey, whatever you say. I do have to get going though... so I won't get any further insults until later this week.
So that I means I won't be getting any until then either. Like I said, pointless.
You ever notice how often christians will bring up the mad at god argument, or the hurt by the church argument against atheists? For christians it needs to be emotional, reason doesn't play into it. That's what faith really is, an unreasonable emotional attachment.
Phlydwg/Savage has present lame formulaic arguments on here before and everytime he's smacked down he retreats into faith, just like damn near every other christian. That's why I think friar posted that link, because faith is this irrational emotional connection to an idea.
Atheists don't have that, don't need it. It's one thing to think a person is wrong. It's another when they don't even respond to the logical problems in their own argument. Look at some of Skrriti's arguments over origin of life, the ability to say "i don't know" instead of "I have faith".
Atheists have no emotional reason to hold ont atheism. Hell, I'm an atheist and I think it would be great if there was life after death, if there was an objective right and objective wrong, or if there really was something to make mindless suffering alright. That would be great...but the world dont work that way.
I can't speak for the Friar but what makes me so damned mad at these christians who come with this mad lib philosophy is that they turn their own shit against atheists. They say we have faith, they say we are attached to atheism, they say we're a religion. I say they're gripping onto their faith so hard they strike out at anything threatens to take their emotional security blanket away.
If faith isn't a mental disorder, it's damn close.
"You ever notice how often christians will bring up the mad at god argument, or the hurt by the church argument against atheists? For christians it needs to be emotional, reason doesn't play into it. That's what faith really is, an unreasonable emotional attachment."
How do you draw that conclusion from the above discussion between Casey and I? I didn't bring up the "mad at God argument".
Okay, let me be as clear as possible. I'll start by defining some terms:
Deductive reasoning -- "Deductive reasoning is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises), which are assumed to be true, to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true. An example of deductive reasoning, given by Aristotle, is
* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)
For a detailed treatment of deduction as it is understood in philosophy, see Logic. For a technical treatment of deduction as it is understood in mathematics, see mathematical logic." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
Inductive reasoning -- "Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.[1] It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is employed, for example, in using specific propositions such as:
This ice is cold. (or: All ice I have ever touched was cold.)
This billiard ball moves when struck with a cue. (or: Of one hundred billiard balls struck with a cue, all of them moved.)
...to infer general propositions such as:
All ice is cold.
All billiard balls move when struck with a cue. " -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Faith -- "To take a risk based on one's confidence in the evidence." -- http://grupthink.com/answer/109915
As I've said before, absolute certainty does not exist except for God himself (omniscience). It is therefore impossible to know without a doubt that something is completely true. Even when using deductive reasoning, one must take for granted that both the major and minor premise is true. Here's are example:
*All websites hosted by Modwest are never down (major premise)
*Grupthink is hosted by Modwest (minor premise)
*The Grupthink website will be online tomorrow (conclusion)
If both the minor and major premise are true, then it follows that the conclusion must also be true. But how can we know that the premises are true? Through inductive reasoning:
*All Modwest-hosted websites that I have seen have been fully functional. (major premise)
*Modwest claims to host Grupthink (minor premise)
*The Grupthink website will PROBABLY be online tomorrow. (conclusion)
Because of that "probably" in the conclusion, it requires faith on my part to direct my browser to grupthink.com (if I thought it would be down, I wouldn't bother). -- http://www.grupthink.com/comment/47092
Now let's apply it to the current discussion:
*Science is incompatible with the existence of God (major premise)
*Science is never wrong (minor premise)
*God does not exist (conclusion)
This seems to be the argument most commonly used by atheists on this website. However, one cannot be certain of the soundness of the major and minor premise.
*According to my experience, science is incompatible with the existence of God (major premise)
*I have never known science to be wrong (minor premise)
*God PROBABLY does not exist (conclusion)
Like the other example, that "probably" in the conclusion means that it takes faith in order to declare oneself an atheist and live his/her life accordingly. This is just one of many arguments against God, but they all require faith. http://www.grupthink.com/topic/10184
Similarly, belief in the existence of God requires faith.
*The universe is incredibly complex
*Complexity requires design
*God exists
This is only one argument for the existence of God, and as with all arguments for or against the existence of God, the premises cannot be known to a certainty.
*The universe appears to be incredibly complex
*All complex things that I have observed have been designed by a higher intelligence
*God PROBABLY exists
It usually isn't simply one argument that convinces a person of the existence or non-existence of God. Both sides commonly site several: "All our knowledge, then, is an intricate combination of intuition, induction, and deduction. Philosophers will always argue about which comes first and how much we can truly know. I believe the truth can be discovered in each of these ways and that it is foolish to exclude any of them. In reality, the way we arrive at the truth is not complicated at all. We deduce things from what we innately know (a priori), and the experience of being alive in this world gives us compelling evidence to reach, by inference (induction), reliable conclusions." -- http://www.rzim.org/.../Default.aspx
My main point, in case you've missed it, is that it takes as least as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian. If faith is a mental disorder, we're all crazy.
Who are you, by the way? I haven't seen you post to this website before. I'm not in the habit of getting into deep philosophical discussions with complete strangers.
I was making an observation not talking about you in particular. Thanks for making my case however.
Faith in a religious context is defined as: "belief that is not based on proof" It is not taking a risk based on the evidence. Also there is no evidence for god, only gaps where evidence might possibly one day be found...maybe.
Your syllogisms not only have hidden premises but many of the stated premisis are strawmen (instead of being an actual argument). Like "science is never wrong". No one on this website or any atheists website I have ever seen has ever said such a thing.
You haven't shown how faith is needed to be an atheist in the least. You have shown that you are preaching to the choir with these simplistic and biased syllogisms. Based on what you wrote it doesn't seem like you've read much atheist arguments. You really should try that sometime before you come with claims of faith and the argument from design.
I've been on here before, I just am not on often. In case you haven't noticed the internet is populated by complete strangers.
I really wish you would make some effort to understand what I'm trying to say.
"Like 'science is never wrong'. No one on this website or any atheists website I have ever seen has ever said such a thing."
-- that was just an example of deductive logic vs. inductive logic. I also gave the inductive version:
"*According to my experience, science is incompatible with the existence of God (major premise)
*I have never known science to be wrong (minor premise)
*God PROBABLY does not exist (conclusion)"
At least 28 people on this website have said that scientific incompatibility is the reason they are not a Christian. That's why I used it. http://www.grupthink.com/answer/101369
"Faith in a religious context is defined as: 'belief that is not based on proof' It is not taking a risk based on the evidence."
-- How did you come up with that definition? Nobody knows for certain, therefore to believe or disbelieve requires faith. A person might be wrong about the evidence, but if he/she perceives that evidence is lacking in favor of atheism the person will probably be a Christian (or some other religion that believes in a higher power). Likewise, if a person perceives that evidence is lacking favor of the existence of a higher power, he/she will probably be an atheist. Either way, no person's perceptions are always 100% accurate -- therefore faith is required in order to make up for what we do not know.
"Based on what you wrote it doesn't seem like you've read much atheist arguments. You really should try that sometime before you come with claims of faith and the argument from design."
-- The argument from design was also an example. I'm not trying to prove that God exists in this thread, I'm only trying to show that EVERYBODY has faith in something.
"I've been on here before, I just am not on often. In case you haven't noticed the internet is populated by complete strangers."
Okay. Well, it's good to meet you.
You are equivocating religious faith (defined as belief without evidence:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#C
riticisms_of_faith , http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith) and epistemology (a system for determining reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology). If I expect my car to start because it has started before that is making a epistemic decision, not faith. When someone is confronted with refutations of their beliefs and evidence to the contrary and say they believe in spite of that, that is faith. (see any episodes of the Atheist Experience, the callers are a hoot)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Additional Reading (Generated from a quick google search):
http://atheism.about...ire-faith.htm
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=lostfaith
http://atheism.about...s/a/faith.htm
http://www.atheistre...re-faith.html
http://www.kellygorski.com/?p=3
http://www.atheistre...re-faith.html
http://askanatheist....ism-by-faith/
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/12346
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/thoughts.html
http://www.curiouslittlemonkey.com/faith.shtml
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faith.htm
http://www.atheistempire.com/atheism/faith.html
http://www.atheistpe...ind-of-faith/
http://skeptico.blog...no-faith.html
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
@ Casey -- I don't believe I'm equivocationg (ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word). I've tried to be very clear about how I'm defining my terms.
From that article on criticisms of faith: "Defenders of faith say that belief in scientific evidence is itself based on faith — in positivism; yet they do not themselves defy reason by walking off cliffs out of faith in divine intervention. Others claim that faith is perfectly compatible with and does not necessarily contradict reason, "faith" meaning an assumed belief. Many Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that there is adequate historical evidence of their God's existence and interaction with human beings. As such, they may believe that there is no need for "faith" in God in the sense of belief against or despite evidence; rather, they hold that evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that their God probably exists or certainly exists."
This is what I'm saying.
"If I expect my car to start because it has started before that is making a epistemic decision, not faith."
-- Fine, use whatever term you like. The concept is the same and everyone does it.
@ Abendergo -- Your link requires some explanation. In the past, people on this site have been accused of posting youtube videos in place of arguments. I don't think this is much better. However, it seems that this article is saying, "the evidence cited by religious people simply does not add up and their belief in God is really done in spite of evidence against". Granted, some people would rather not think -- but they're on both sides of the isle. Some people are atheists would probably rather that God didn't exist. Like I said earlier, both the religious and non-religious are subject to confirmation bias. http://www.grupthink.com/comment/71312
Here's an example of equivocation:
This decision requires reasoning.
I have a reason for making my decision.
Therefore my decision was reached through reasoning.
See here we are using the multiple uses of the word reason. The joy and pain of living and using a dynamic language. Except use one and three are not the same as use two. Faith has a very clear definition in the religious context. Make a reasoned decision is not faith. If you want to say you made a reasoned decision about god then that's fine, but instead you are saying that all reasoned decisions are faith.
Of course 100% certainty does not exist, that does not mean there isn't levels of certainty and it doesn't mean we cannot make decisions about the nature of reality. Such decisions are what is discussed in the field of philosophy known as epistemology.
If we look at abendergo's humorous link we see a man who concludes there is no dragon in the garage. That man is not employing faith. It takes over a hundred years for neptune to make one revolution around the sun. I have never seen it nor has anyone. However I can use evidence and reason to conclude that it has and will (barring the unforseen) revolve around the sun. That is not faith, that is reason.
Faith is the belief without evidence. Faith seems to be defined by abendergo as an emotional attachment to the veracity of an idea. It has been defined as "the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen". Faith, in the religious context, is belief outside of reason. To use the word faith to refer to both religious faith and trust is equivocating. To use faith to refer to unreasoned belief and reasoned belief is equivocating.
If you want to discuss the merits of your epistemic or philosophical position then do so. If you want to make a case that reason upholds theism then do so. What I object to is your misapplication of the word faith and the concept of faith.
You say that I'm equivocating because you don't believe that religious faith and reason could ever coexist. I've really only been using one definition of faith throughout this entire thread, though I've been applying it to both religion and daily things such as your car example.
"To use the word faith to refer to both religious faith and trust is equivocating. To use faith to refer to unreasoned belief and reasoned belief is equivocating."
...not if the person truly believes that the evidence is in favor of that belief. It is true the terms are similar (trust and faith), but I think that faith implies that action will be taken due to a person's trust or confidence in a certain belief.
If a person has weighed the arguments for and against the existence of God and come to the conclusion that the evidence for outweighs the evidence against, then it would be reasonable to hold this belief -- however I would still use the term faith because no amount of the evidence in the world can make it a certainty. To hold a strong belief without bothering to see if the evidence supports it would not be faith (since it would take a higher level of confidence in a belief to see if it holds up against criticism) but fanaticism.
"Faith, in the religious context, is belief outside of reason."
-- You say this only because of your faith in the non-existence of God. You have weighed the evidence for and against and come to the conclusion that belief in the existence of God is under all circumstances completely unreasonable... but maybe you're not seeing the whole picture? A few missing pieces of key evidence can mean a great deal. http://www.grupthink.com/comment/55494
You are simply equivocating, there is no argument to be made. You even admit to it. Religious faith and reason can co-exist, I never said they couldn't. I said faith and reason are two different things. You are equivocating the concept of reaching a reasonable conclusion with having faith.
To claim that because 100% certainty is not possible so everything is faith is to blatantly misapply the word faith and to misunderstand epistemology. We are talking about two completely different concepts but you are using the same word. That is equivocating.
Religious Faith is belief without evidence, it is irrational trust, it is unreasoned belief. That definition is not only supported by the dictionary but by preachers, apologists, and theologians. Coming to a conclusion about the nature of reality is using reason and evidence is not faith. You can have both faith and a reasoned belief, but they are not the same thing.
If you want to make an argument for god using reason and logic then go for it. What you are doing here is not only using a term incorrectly but doing so for the purposes of trying to confuse faith and reason so as to use faith-based rhetoric without the problems inherent in the concept of faith.
The concepts are clearly different. If you wish to have a reasonable conversation about god with anyone then I would drop the word games and avoid the equivocation fallacy. It's a cheap trick and it obfuscates the issue. Like I said, if you want to make a reasoned argument for god you can, but faith is not an argument and reason is not faith.
Equivocation:
The use of one term to describe two or more seperate concepts. Or the switching of meanings for a term in an argument.
Examples:
Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal.
The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.
Brad is a nobody, but since nobody is perfect, Brad must be perfect, too.
All trees have bark. All dogs bark. Therefore, all dogs are trees.
A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Margarine is better than nothing. Nothing is better than butter. Therefore margarine is better than butter
--------------------------
One word, two different concepts.
I understand what equivocation means, and I'm not doing it!
"To take a risk based on one's confidence in the visible evidence." -- this is the definition of faith that I have used throughout this entire thread! I'm saying that faith = assumed belief.
"Religious Faith is belief without evidence, it is irrational trust, it is unreasoned belief. That definition is not only supported by the dictionary but by preachers, apologists, and theologians. Coming to a conclusion about the nature of reality is using reason and evidence is not faith. You can have both faith and a reasoned belief, but they are not the same thing."
-- Perhaps not the same thing, but they go hand in hand. It only by faith that a person is able to hold a reasoned belief; since even reasoned beliefs require faith due to the lack of 100% certainty. You may understand faith to mean irrational belief, but that's not the way that I see it. Anyone who doesn't know everything about everything demonstrates faith.
"Others claim that faith is perfectly compatible with and does not necessarily contradict reason, 'faith' meaning an ASSUMED BELIEF. Many Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that there is adequate historical evidence of their God's existence and interaction with human beings." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#C
riticisms_of_faith
You are equivocating. You are using the word faith to refer to two different concepts. If you want to argue that the concepts are similar then do so, but stop using one term to describe both concepts, all that does is obfuscate the point and confuse the blind trust of the true believer with reasoned epistemology. You are equivocating religious faith with being sure. Two different and at times conflicting concepts.
Not only that but to use the word faith here is also contrary to how it is used in religious communities and the general public. It's intentional ambiguity. It would be the same as me using the word gay to mean happy knowing full well that readers will take it to mean homosexual. For example, creating a headline that "the President is Gay". You are using an alternate definition beside the one the context requires. Just stop using the same term to refer to different concepts.
Assume: to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit. Sounds like belief without evidence to me. Sounds like religious faith. The man who believes in god even though he hasn't studied the arguments for or against is employing faith. The man who believes the earth is 6000 years old despite the evidence to the contrary is using faith. The man who reaches a conclusion that if he combines element x and element y he will get chemical Z is making a reasoned decision. So no, not everyone uses assumed belief or faith.
You have really got to stop with the no 100% certainty = faith, it's nonsense. First of all 100% certainty is imagination only, not a real standard on which anything is judged. Certainty exists, certainty does not mean absolute certainty. I can say that my shirt is blue with certainty, but absolute certainty is a nonsensical proposition. The idea of absolute certainty cannot be used to judge anything, it's an empty placeholder.
We can make judgments about the nature of reality based on reason and logic without having to stop and say, "we'll assume this is true". Even reason and logic can be tested. Even our perceptions can be challenged. Faith is to stop challenging and stop looking for evidence or reason and just believe. It is to assume.
These are two different concepts.
"Assume: to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit. Sounds like belief without evidence to me. Sounds like religious faith."
-- Not necessarily...
"The man who believes in god even though he hasn't studied the arguments for or against is employing faith. The man who believes the earth is 6000 years old despite the evidence to the contrary is using faith. The man who reaches a conclusion that if he combines element x and element y he will get chemical Z is making a reasoned decision. So no, not everyone uses assumed belief or faith."
-- You're wrong by saying that the man who reaches a conclusion about combining two elements is assuming nothing. Granted, he is assuming much less than the creationist, but he is making assumptions nonetheless. Mainly he is assuming that the chemical x and chemical y will behave as they have in the past -- or as other people have observed them behave in the past.
"We can make judgments about the nature of reality based on reason and logic without having to stop and say, 'we'll assume this is true'."
-- Whether or not we stop and say it, we still do it.
"I can say that my shirt is blue with certainty, but absolute certainty is a nonsensical proposition."
-- Right, absolute certainty is unattainable. Therefore, when you say that your shirt is blue you are making some assumptions -- perhaps that your eyes are sending the correct signal to your brain.
"Not only that but to use the word faith here is also contrary to how it is used in religious communities and the general public. It's intentional ambiguity. It would be the same as me using the word gay to mean happy knowing full well that readers will take it to mean homosexual. For example, creating a headline that 'the President is Gay'. You are using an alternate definition beside the one the context requires. Just stop using the same term to refer to different concepts."
-- They are not different concepts, just different levels of intensity. They both mean 'assumed belief', but in some instances there is more assumption happening than in others. Expecting your car to start because it has started before involves some assumption (that conditions now are at least as favorable as they were in the past), while expecting your car to start because a shady auto mechanic said that it would involves more.
A similar term is the word 'love'. People use it to describe their feelings towards a McDonald's cheeseburger as well as their own mother. The concept is essentially the same in both instances, but it varies greatly in intensity.
Phlydwg:
"You're wrong by saying that the man who reaches a conclusion about combining two elements is assuming nothing. Granted, he is assuming much less than the creationist, but he is making assumptions nonetheless. Mainly he is assuming that the chemical x and chemical y will behave as they have in the past -- or as other people have observed them behave in the past."
The problem here is that the veracity of cause and effect can be reached through reason and reason itself can be examined next to "other ways of knowing". So to accept, not assume, cause and effect doesn't rely on assumption. I'll give you that people sometimes do just assume their premises but that is intellectual laziness.
Also since absolute certainty is a non issue the use of reason and the principle of cause and effect inform the chemist of the high proability of the creation of chemical Z.
Plydwg:
"Whether or not we stop and say it, we still do it."
That's intellectual laziness and why I directed you toward epistemology where the nature of knowledge is examined. For example you can find debates and conversations between ontological realists and anti-realists and between epistemic rationalists, idealists, phenomonolgists etc.
Stopping after you feel you've come to a correct conclusion and then working from that is not faith. Intellectual rigor demands that we examine and respond to criticisms to all parts of our philosophy. To assume is not to critically examine, it is to take for granted.
To start your car does not require assumption it requires reason. I can use reason to determine we live in a world of cause and effect. I can also use reason to evaluate whether my car's situation has changed. And based on that I can determine what is likely based on the information at hand. The presence of information not available to me at the time only shows that I'm not omniscient, it doesn't prove or evne imply assumption. Reason also allows us to determine that the failure of it starting is due to factors we did not take into account.
YOU ARE ASSUMING. You assume that people act with 100% certainty in their actions. You are also assuming that the decisions people make are done without reasoning their premises. You are also assuming that people make decisions about the final state of the universe and not the most probable state of the universe. This does not reflect how I, or most people I know, actually make decisions.
Yes, they are two different concepts. Abandon your objection to that, it does not follow.
I think the basic failure of communication is that you are claiming that acting on an idea without a 100% certainty is to assume that it's true. So a person who starts there car assumes it will start.
However when I lack absolute certainty, which is always, I act on what I have reasoned to be the highest probability knowing full well that I could be wrong. So when I start my car I reason that it will likely start.
One is assuming belief and the other is not. I would argue that the first is a misinterpretation of how humans actually make decisions.
Now if you want to abandon this line of apologetics and try to say that belief in god is warranted by the evidence then we here at grupthink can happily oblige your desire to be spanked ;).
Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying... and yes that is the big question -- whether or not belief in God is warranted by the evidence. But man... can a guy catch a break? You guys are ruthless. :)