Why do you actually believe in God?

[T.J.]

I'm understanding the distinction, but it doesn't sound like God can be applied to either.

[Ignorant]

Well of course god can't be applied to either. God is not evident in the first sense (we don't directly observe god), and god is not evidence in the second sense (god is not the evidence related to god's existence).

[Neo-Scholastic]

Chad's definition of evidence predates the alternative presented by excited penguin...

Chad's evidence = things that are EVIDENT...Excited Penguin's evidence = ..."raw data" already considered in relation to a proposition (e.g. a hypothesis)

Thank you. If someone proposes the proposition "Evolution is true" and I ask what is your evidence, his reasonable reply could be "the fossil record." Now if for the sake of argument I was a YEC (which I am not) I would challenge that response by saying that the fossil record shows no such thing. I am open to discussing whether the proposition "God exists" logically follows from the observable facts about reality, those facts that I cite in my signature line.

What I find; however, is that many atheists simply will not acknowledge the "raw data" knowing full well that these are the observations on which Thomas Aquinas built the 5 Ways. Since the logic of Aquinas is faultless the only line of attack for the skeptic is to challenge the facts. In doing so he or she often demonstrates a prior intellectual commitment to either absurdism or nihilism. That is their existential choice, just as it is my existential choice to believe that the world is intelligible and that reason is effective.

I also find that many atheists will simply not face up to their absurdism or nihilism. I do not know why. When I was an atheist I embraced both. To my mind, that is the only intellectually honest stance for an atheist. I would not fault them for taking that stance, but I do fault them for denying the logical conclusions of their lack of belief. They cannot claim the high ground of rationality while denying the power of reason and how the secrets of the world yield to it.

[T.J.]

Where does he fall in the third sense?

[RetiredArmy]

[Atheists] cannot claim the high ground of rationality while denying the power of reason and how the secrets of the world yield to it.

What a way to end!  Reason is the number one tool of skeptics, humanists, agnostics, atheists, antitheists, and others.  Why would we deny the power of it?  We think it is great!  With reason we find there is no sense, no good, in applying belief in a supernatural being simply because we cannot explain something.  You nailed that in the last of that sentence, about the secrets of the world yielding to reason.  Why yes, that is correct, eventually reason and science do unveil the secrets of the world.  That's the problem with associating a deity with the unknown, as reason and science eventually show the unknown isn't a deity or because of one, it's physics or geology or chemistry, etc.  So, as you say, since we do NOT deny the power of reason and science in their uncovering secrets, we have the rational high ground.  Thanks!

[Veritas_Vincit]

Just a roundabout way of saying he's incomprehensible.

Try going to the people you love deeply and see how each reacts when you tell him or her how you define them. Usually people don't like being put in a box. Think for a moment how unreasonable it is to demand definition of the infinite I AM that encompasses who He is in His infinite fullness when you cannot even do that for finite human beings.

You will always notice that proofs of existence generally follow the negative way. Conceptions of divine attributes are formed by reflecting on what God is not. But yes, God is incomprehensible but that does not mean we cannot know some things about Him. Ultimately the relationship between God and an individual is personal not purely intellectual.

My guess is that most skeptics want believers to present them with a box to define God so they can argue about the box and avoid trying to actually reflect on what God might be.

Going and telling someone you deeply love how you define them is not the same as telling someone else about them. If you go to your wife and tell her how you define her, you could tell her that she "appear[s] to be the visible personification of absolute perfection". It doesn't necessarily have to be rude. But, if you are telling me about your wife, you would define her - 'wife' means woman, human female, your mate and legal partner. If however you told me nothing about her, not even that she was your wife, I probably wouldn't believe you were married! You can't expect anyone else to believe your claim that something exists if you won't even define what you actually mean, right?

[Ignorant]

Where does he fall in the third sense?

Third sense of what?

[T.J.]

Where does he fall in the third sense?

Third sense of what?

I was talking about the third line in Chad's sig:

3) under specific circumstances, unthinking things that cause change regularly produce a limited range of effects.

[Angrboda]

I also find that many atheists will simply not face up to their absurdism or nihilism. I do not know why. When I was an atheist I embraced both. To my mind, that is the only intellectually honest stance for an atheist. I would not fault them for taking that stance, but I do fault them for denying the logical conclusions of their lack of belief. They cannot claim the high ground of rationality while denying the power of reason and how the secrets of the world yield to it.

That you cannot see reason without God leading to anything but nihilism and absurdism is a limitation in your vision, not an absolute statement of reality. It might explain why you're a theist. Reason is a tool and like any tool, there are limits to its application. I feel Aquinas overstepped those limits, but I have yet to hear the previously promised explanation of how he gets from the supposed conclusions of his arguments to, "...this everyone knows as God." Regardless, that you can see nothing but absurdity and nihilism in a world without God doesn't mean that's the way the world is.

[KevinM1]

I'm morbidly curious about why Chad thinks atheism is ultimately absurdist and nihilistic.