The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics

[Kenny]

Ken,

How do ultimately define "fair" what makes you think that your 'fair' is really 'fair'?

Are you asking Kenny, or me?

Sorry, forgot to put name.. meant kenny

I'm just interested where the idea of fairness for him ultimately comes from

Why should life be fair?

Seems to me if God is omnibenevolent, he has to be fair.

Ken

Kenny,
See the two links I posted above, to why God isn't fair.

I read the first one and my problem with this link and the ideas behind it are that I do not believe that I am evil and guilty and I am not going to accept that I am. I will not accept that I will forever require grace and forgiveness in order to be good or considered good because I am not perfect.

For me to do so would come with the mindset that I in general am an evil guilty, corrupted thing that forever depends on that forgiveness and that’s not something I believe or accept.

I know that sounds harsh, and believe me I am not trying to offend, but I don't know how to express it any other way, the fact is; I don't believe I am a bad person. I don’t believe I deserve torture. I know the good that I do by far outweighs the bad, and to focus on the bad and ignore the good in my opinion is not fair.

Ken

[RickD]

People don't believe in God, because it makes sense, or there should be a logic to it, that is the most driest and academic sort of belief their is which a philosopher like Anthony Flew could have for sure and I have no objections but everyday folk, who don't know or gave a mind about philosophy will have zero tangents running into God because it should "make sense". Sure it should, but that is NOT ENOUGH. Just because there is a logic that God should exist doesn't necessarily means one does.

People come to God when they experience him. That is why we have the church to show love and the gospel to evangelize. And thank God for that. Imagine if all we had to do was to tell people, believe in Jesus because it makes sense, well the hell it doesn't. Who would want to believe in someone who died 2000 years ago, whom they have never seen, experienced or heard. Its equal to someone asking me to believe in Muhammad, or Buddha. I don't know these guys.

And that is what I believe our faith separates us from. Because we believe that unlike Muhammad and Buddha, Jesus Christ we believe still can touch human lives, through the holy spirit, through the church and most importantly through personal revelation.

So sorry, but what are you guys expecting? Do you honestly expect someone to agree that God exists because the second law of thermodynamics require it to be? Or that pascal's wager points that way?

Faith comes by hearing God. Not just logic or good sense or philosophy or whatever. I know you all mean really well, you are doing it with the best of intentions but my friends, I only see you quibbling about something you can never get a result from, even if you are right.

It only happens from the inside and when it does happen there is no stopping it.

I apologize if its offensive what I wrote, I don't mean to insult anyone's efforts here but really, I don't see the logic or sense or "God is abundantly clear, we just need to accept it". God is not abundantly clear and that is no reason why anyone ever should just come to Christ. Its salvation what brings anyone to the cross not mere curiosity with no roots.

I would never believe or would have believed in Christ because of good sense of logic. It was an actual intervention, something that happened in my life which stunned me, God did something, is probably the right wording to use here, which changed me. God took the first step, in his infinite love and mercy towards me and I believe towards us all. We can't really sort all these things in our head, can we now? When it happened, it was like a train wrecked into all that I believed or held in unbelief. It broke the foundations of my logic and reasoning on which I had held that God didn't exist. It was love, that reached out to me, not the other way around.

One way or another, God finds his way around us. If he had been that clear to everyone, like Paul mentions in Romans, why did Paul ever went to evangelize in the first place? Because it was never that clear after all.

Neo,

I think you're correct if we are talking about believing in/trusting Christ. But we need to take baby steps with some people. If they are completely against the possibility that God could exist, then showing them from logic that He must exist, we are taking that first baby step in their walk with Christ.

So, while we can and do pray for people like Kenny, that they will be open to the gospel, what do we do in the meantime?

So, I absolutely agree that coming to a saving faith in Christ isn't logical. Believing a man who lived 2000 years ago is God in the flesh isn't logical. Believing he was born of a virgin, died, and rose from the dead, isn't logical.

And after the gospel is presented to those like Kenny, only God can work on them. But anything we can try, to get that person to take that first baby step to having a saving faith in Christ, don't we have to try?

[RickD]

kenny wrote:


I read the first one and my problem with this link and the ideas behind it are that I do not believe that I am evil and guilty and I am not going to accept that I am. I will not accept that I will forever require grace and forgiveness in order to be good or considered good because I am not perfect.

I must've missed it...Kenny, where in either of those two links does it say you are evil?

know that sounds harsh, and believe me I am not trying to offend, but I don't know how to express it any other way, the fact is; I don't believe I am a bad person. I don’t believe I deserve torture. I know the good that I do by far outweighs the bad, and to focus on the bad and ignore the good in my opinion is not fair.

And there's that dreaded "fair" word again, used when referring to God.
And Kenny, if you've broken any of God's commandments, even one, you're guilty of breaking them all.

[neo-x]

People don't believe in God, because it makes sense, or there should be a logic to it, that is the most driest and academic sort of belief their is which a philosopher like Anthony Flew could have for sure and I have no objections but everyday folk, who don't know or gave a mind about philosophy will have zero tangents running into God because it should "make sense". Sure it should, but that is NOT ENOUGH. Just because there is a logic that God should exist doesn't necessarily means one does.

People come to God when they experience him. That is why we have the church to show love and the gospel to evangelize. And thank God for that. Imagine if all we had to do was to tell people, believe in Jesus because it makes sense, well the hell it doesn't. Who would want to believe in someone who died 2000 years ago, whom they have never seen, experienced or heard. Its equal to someone asking me to believe in Muhammad, or Buddha. I don't know these guys.

And that is what I believe our faith separates us from. Because we believe that unlike Muhammad and Buddha, Jesus Christ we believe still can touch human lives, through the holy spirit, through the church and most importantly through personal revelation.

So sorry, but what are you guys expecting? Do you honestly expect someone to agree that God exists because the second law of thermodynamics require it to be? Or that pascal's wager points that way?

Faith comes by hearing God. Not just logic or good sense or philosophy or whatever. I know you all mean really well, you are doing it with the best of intentions but my friends, I only see you quibbling about something you can never get a result from, even if you are right.

It only happens from the inside and when it does happen there is no stopping it.

I apologize if its offensive what I wrote, I don't mean to insult anyone's efforts here but really, I don't see the logic or sense or "God is abundantly clear, we just need to accept it". God is not abundantly clear and that is no reason why anyone ever should just come to Christ. Its salvation what brings anyone to the cross not mere curiosity with no roots.

I would never believe or would have believed in Christ because of good sense of logic. It was an actual intervention, something that happened in my life which stunned me, God did something, is probably the right wording to use here, which changed me. God took the first step, in his infinite love and mercy towards me and I believe towards us all. We can't really sort all these things in our head, can we now? When it happened, it was like a train wrecked into all that I believed or held in unbelief. It broke the foundations of my logic and reasoning on which I had held that God didn't exist. It was love, that reached out to me, not the other way around.

One way or another, God finds his way around us. If he had been that clear to everyone, like Paul mentions in Romans, why did Paul ever went to evangelize in the first place? Because it was never that clear after all.

Neo,

I think you're correct if we are talking about believing in/trusting Christ. But we need to take baby steps with some people. If they are completely against the possibility that God could exist, then showing them from logic that He must exist, we are taking that first baby step in their walk with Christ.

So, while we can and do pray for people like Kenny, that they will be open to the gospel, what do we do in the meantime?

So, I absolutely agree that coming to a saving faith in Christ isn't logical. Believing a man who lived 2000 years ago is God in the flesh isn't logical. Believing he was born of a virgin, died, and rose from the dead, isn't logical.

And after the gospel is presented to those like Kenny, only God can work on them. But anything we can try, to get that person to take that first baby step to having a saving faith in Christ, don't we have to try?

Absolutely Rick, I totally agree with you and respect that zeal. I admire it. And I appreciate your patience in all that because I do know how hard it is to take these little steps and carry on back and forth with them, I do. But you can't forcibly spoon feed someone either beyond a certain limit if you see them in a conflict to you. That approach which is prevalent in this thread, so far isn't working in the 19-20 pages I have followed it on.

And the reason in my humble opinion is, they just have not experienced God, and that may be because of a Genuine experience or the lack of it. I would listen to the reasons for why they do so, there is always a reason, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but its there. I would not say things which they don't identify themselves with since that is not a healthy discussion, its disrespectful to them, I would not stereotype them, I would not corner them in philosophy or logic and make them come to agreement to my argument because there was no other way around it. I'd give them the space to retire of the discussion and think when they have time, so that its a meaningful discussion. That imo is a sowing of seed, if you want one which has a better chance of a healthy brainstorming or a soul searching then a conflict approach of intellects. It doesn't work when ACB(just for example here) says Atheists are mad at God. I'd prefer they arrive to my conclusion on their own rather they are forced to accept it because I had an argument very hard to rebutt or that I stereotyped them and the retired from the discussion or thought that I didn't know their reality and in which case its impossible to go with that discussion anymore since I don't even identify them as intelligent beings.

Remember when someone just assumes we Christians are stupid people with low IQ because we believe in God? Its also equally insulting when we throw that stone back and question the intellect or intelligence of the person who doesn't share our beliefs. Telling them why they are wrong is one thing but having the approach that you are finger walking someone stupid or ignorant who can't figure it out themselves is a different thing. The latter, even if its not said out-loud is quite offensive and imo destroys all your trying, turns all your efforts null and void. Respect these people too, they may have had a very different experience from you. I'd listen and listen and listen. Not because I expect them to just to vent out, but because I'd get to better know that person. I'd know why he does what he does. That in itself is a great thing to have, to actually know someone. And may be someday he will be more open to discuss things. Who knows, right? But the bond of respect and knowing must be real, it shouldn't be based on, "oh I'm just being friendly because I would like to evangelize to these people down the road.

True evangelism and prayer only works when we genuinely care. We can't make the Miss world prayer of feeding all the hungry and bringing peace to mankind, its useless and so is a prayer or evangelism when its done to only evangelize.

That is what I think are the hurdles here and I am not saying its specifically anyone fault alone, I have done that too in the past with fellow believers and unbelievers and gained nothing and lost good aquintances and friends, Heck, many Christians do believe or are led to believe that atheists deny God because of hatred and their sin. But Its not true for all.

Kenny has been around us for sometime and is an esteemed member of this board. He seems like a good guy, he is always polite and I find myself believing him when he says he is not a bad person overall. That he doesn't deserve torture, And if there is ever a chance I'd tell him, its not about being good or bad. Christ is a whole new dimension. He can fix what logic won't fix in a broken heart and soul. That there is more to Christ than the heaven/hell carrot. And that he can choose to not believe any of this, and I can't prove any of this, but he should trust his own instincts and be always real, and then let the chips fall where they may.

That is what I think, with all due respect.

Cheers.

[abelcainsbrother]

The way you put "since I can't lack belief" seems amiss...

But, nonetheless, my belief would lean with Ed.
Besides being Atheist, he's given my no reason to consider him a liar.

Yeah I see your point; to assume Ken has Ice cream in his freezer is easy.
Now that I look at it, that was a very flawed question I asked you; it doesn’t apply very well with questions about the existence of God. I think it goes back to the ole claim “extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence”.

If the claim is that Kenny has Ice cream at his home, that is easy to acucept; you would even be willing to take Ed’s word for it. But if Ed told you that Ken has a Dinosaur at his home; now his word is no longer sufficient; you are going to require much more evidence to support that claim because the Dinosaur claim is an extraordinary claim; Ice cream is not. To the Atheist, God is an extraordinary claim as well

Ken

If you read my last reply to Ed, and understand it...
Belief in God really isn't an extraordinary claim at all, but rather there is a logical necessity that needs explaining.

Belief in God may not be an extraordinary claim for someone who already believe he exists, but for a skeptic like myself, it is. I did read over your reply to Ed and though doing a good job of describing your views, I didn’t find your claim of a single God as a logical necessary for existence, believable.
Like when you mentioned my claim of the possibility of the physical world always have existing, weather the physical world is contingent or not; you didn’t explain why it is impossible for it to have always existed, and things evolve into what they are now.

Ken

OK then,tell us about something in our world that did not have a cause,was caused but not by something else and was not willed into existence?Think about this,I'm serious,I'm not trying to one up you,etc.I'm just trying to get you to realize how hard it is and how much faith it requires to reject an all a powerful creator in order to somehow imagine everything in our world happening in a way that defies reality.It is much much harder to believe what you do,now I know you'll try to deny I know what you assume by rejecting God,but the difference is I have a very good reason to believe God created the universe because I know the facts of reality and you are defying reality.

Nothing ever happens without a cause and all things that are caused were caused by something else and they are willed into existence,but yet you are rejecting this for no reason.Because it is then impossible to have a universe if you reject God,there is nothing in our world to go by to defy this fact,nothing except imagination.Science cannot help you either which atheists tend to believe woo woo science that was developed by ignoring philosophy,the same thing you're doing because of it.

It is much much harder to believe things that you do to reject God who can create universes easy.

If everything you say about God is as logical, and obvious as you claim, how does this logic escape some of the greatest scientific minds on earth? In other words; what is it that YOU know that they don't'?

Ken[/quote]

Thanks,Kenny but this is philosophy from the 13 th century that was directly confronting naturalism and it has never been refuted or has'nt.I don't know why intelligent people ignore reality in order to reject God,I mean you tell me how since you do.We are sinners is my guess and don't want to be held accountable to God,but it is always the best choice to choose God because you really have nothing to face if you were wrong somehow,but you do if you went your own way instead of God's way to heaven.

[Nessa]

Nessa,
Does this help?

Or this?

Thanks RIckD,
I'll go over those pages

[Kurieuo]

Perhaps I didn't understand. If matter has always existed, and the physical laws it is contingent on have always existed, why is this impossible?

Good! Now you're starting to understand contingency a bit better.

You understand it on the sequential or time level (i.e., something that has always existed).
And you are starting to get a "hierarchical" level of contingency. For example, consider a piece of writing which lets say has always existed.
To have writing we require something like paper and writing in ink. We know that written ink is contingent upon the piece of the paper.

We can readily identify whether something is contingent in time.
For example, we understand you and I are contingent upon our biological mother and father.
But, how can we know whether something is contingent in the hierarchical way?

Sometimes it is easier to see the layers, for example, without physical laws can matter exist? Probably not.
It seems easy to see, well at least for me, and you seemed to get it so it must be somewhat clear.

So now we have physical laws that have always existed, but nonetheless they still may be contingent.
If matter depends upon a set of physical laws greater than itself, which it seems to me would be, then matter is contingent.
Is there some foundational unifying force upon which absolutely every thing is contingent, which is itself immovable, having always existed without being dependent upon anything else?
THAT, is the question. Right?

So why are we interested to get at that which must be non-contingent?
Well, once we hit it, then we have hit the bedrock and can't go any further.
Whatever IT is, that is what everything including us have come from.
Who wouldn't want to know that?

Now, all I've ultimately reasoned for here with Ed (prior to your interjection, which I don't mind), is that "God" is most definitely not the same as "gods". There is a logical justification for believing in God, whereas "gods" are clearly contingent beings.

That logical justification is based upon the logical necessity of some foundational non-contingent thing or being.

God is believed by many to be the obvious conclusion. Anselm in writing why he believes God exists believes anyone should be able to quickly conceive of the most powerful being possible. This being would be entirely self-sufficient and not contingent upon anything other.

Now, the other option would be to say there is some Super Force, which can explain and unify absolutely everything. All physical laws, matter, energy, consciousness, life, us -- right? Like God minus the intelligence.

Either way, God is most certainly not without reason or on par with "gods".
And just because many people do not readily see the logic like myself, or perhaps now yourself, doesn't mean there are no good reasons.

All the best Kenny.

[Kurieuo]

The way you put "since I can't lack belief" seems amiss...

But, nonetheless, my belief would lean with Ed.
Besides being Atheist, he's given my no reason to consider him a liar.

Yeah I see your point; to assume Ken has Ice cream in his freezer is easy.
Now that I look at it, that was a very flawed question I asked you; it doesn’t apply very well with questions about the existence of God. I think it goes back to the ole claim “extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence”.

If the claim is that Kenny has Ice cream at his home, that is easy to accept; you would even be willing to take Ed’s word for it. But if Ed told you that Ken has a Dinosaur at his home; now his word is no longer sufficient; you are going to require much more evidence to support that claim because the Dinosaur claim is an extraordinary claim; Ice cream is not. To the Atheist, God is an extraordinary claim as well

I wish to note here that your original point was in relation to my argument put forward against a lack of belief in/about something.

It serves as an argument against those Atheists who say they merely lack a belief in or of God.
Such Atheists say that no positive claims are being made about God's existence or lack thereof, because they're not believing God doesn't exist but rather lack a belief in God's existence. Therefore they can criticize belief in God all they want without having to put forward any justifications for their own disbelief. This "position" is what my argument is attacking as being logically unsound.

Our small exchange here seems to have derailed from that and become more about belief in God.

However, I'd like to re-reflect your example upon my original argument which you were responding to.
Let me just say, that even if I do not believe Ed that Ken has a dinosaur at his home, this does not mean I lack a belief in whether or not about Ken has a dinosaur at home.
For I hold some belief in my head about a dinosaur and the kind that pops into my head.
And you know what, this means it could actually be true. Because I'm picturing a dinosaur that is green with dots.
Then I thought, well actually, Ed might be playing a trick. Making me go "yeah right, as if."
Then I rock up and the Wiggles are you your place with Dorothy the Dinosaur.
Or perhaps Ed thought it would be funny seeing you dressed up in a dinosaur outfit for your new job with Dr. Dino.
Who knows right?

In any case, I do have developed beliefs by Ed merely mentioning something to me.
If Ed did not tell me about any dinosaur being at Ken's, only then is that when I lack any belief on the matter.
The one thing I cannot claim post-Ed telling me Ken has a dinosaur at home, is that I lack a belief in or about "Ken having a Dinosaur at his home."
Therefore, my original argument appears to hold in your presented scenarios.

[Kenny]

Sometimes it is easier to see the layers, for example, without physical laws can matter exist? Probably not.
It seems easy to see, well at least for me, and you seemed to get it so it must be somewhat clear.

So now we have physical laws that have always existed, but nonetheless they still may be contingent.
If matter depends upon a set of physical laws greater than itself, which it seems to me would be, then matter is contingent.
Is there some foundational unifying force upon which absolutely every thing is contingent, which is itself immovable, having always existed without being dependent upon anything else?
THAT, is the question. Right?

Good question, but does there have to be? Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

Kn

[Kenny]

The way you put "since I can't lack belief" seems amiss...

But, nonetheless, my belief would lean with Ed.
Besides being Atheist, he's given my no reason to consider him a liar.

Yeah I see your point; to assume Ken has Ice cream in his freezer is easy.
Now that I look at it, that was a very flawed question I asked you; it doesn’t apply very well with questions about the existence of God. I think it goes back to the ole claim “extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence”.

If the claim is that Kenny has Ice cream at his home, that is easy to accept; you would even be willing to take Ed’s word for it. But if Ed told you that Ken has a Dinosaur at his home; now his word is no longer sufficient; you are going to require much more evidence to support that claim because the Dinosaur claim is an extraordinary claim; Ice cream is not. To the Atheist, God is an extraordinary claim as well

I wish to note here that your original point was in relation to my argument put forward against a lack of belief in/about something.

It serves as an argument against those Atheists who say they merely lack a belief in or of God.
Such Atheists say that no positive claims are being made about God's existence or lack thereof, because they're not believing God doesn't exist but rather lack a belief in God's existence. Therefore they can criticize belief in God all they want without having to put forward any justifications for their own disbelief. This "position" is what my argument is attacking as being logically unsound.

Our small exchange here seems to have derailed from that and become more about belief in God.

However, I'd like to re-reflect your example upon my original argument which you were responding to.
Let me just say, that even if I do not believe Ed that Ken has a dinosaur at his home, this does not mean I lack a belief in whether or not about Ken has a dinosaur at home.
For I hold some belief in my head about a dinosaur and the kind that pops into my head.
And you know what, this means it could actually be true. Because I'm picturing a dinosaur that is green with dots.
Then I thought, well actually, Ed might be playing a trick. Making me go "yeah right, as if."
Then I rock up and the Wiggles are you your place with Dorothy the Dinosaur.
Or perhaps Ed thought it would be funny seeing you dressed up in a dinosaur outfit for your new job with Dr. Dino.
Who knows right?

In any case, I do have developed beliefs by Ed merely mentioning something to me.
If Ed did not tell me about any dinosaur being at Ken's, only then is that when I lack any belief on the matter.
The one thing I cannot claim post-Ed telling me Ken has a dinosaur at home, is that I lack a belief in or about "Ken having a Dinosaur at his home."
Therefore, my original argument appears to hold in your presented scenarios.

Okay I see your point; you do not believe Ken has the dinosaur, and your justification for believing Ken doesn't is perhaps it sounds unrealistic. I guess relating it all to the Atheist would be the Atheist says he believes God doesn't exist, and his justification for believing this is because to him it sounds unrealistic.

Ken

[RickD]

Sometimes it is easier to see the layers, for example, without physical laws can matter exist? Probably not.
It seems easy to see, well at least for me, and you seemed to get it so it must be somewhat clear.

So now we have physical laws that have always existed, but nonetheless they still may be contingent.
If matter depends upon a set of physical laws greater than itself, which it seems to me would be, then matter is contingent.
Is there some foundational unifying force upon which absolutely every thing is contingent, which is itself immovable, having always existed without being dependent upon anything else?
THAT, is the question. Right?

Good question, but does there have to be? Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

Kn

Ok Kenny,

Your homework assignment for tonight is to go to the search feature on these forums, type in "infinite regress", and see why it's a problem.

[Kenny]

Sometimes it is easier to see the layers, for example, without physical laws can matter exist? Probably not.
It seems easy to see, well at least for me, and you seemed to get it so it must be somewhat clear.

So now we have physical laws that have always existed, but nonetheless they still may be contingent.
If matter depends upon a set of physical laws greater than itself, which it seems to me would be, then matter is contingent.
Is there some foundational unifying force upon which absolutely every thing is contingent, which is itself immovable, having always existed without being dependent upon anything else?
THAT, is the question. Right?

Good question, but does there have to be? Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

Kn

Ok Kenny,

Your homework assignment for tonight is to go to the search feature on these forums, type in "infinite regress", and see why it's a problem.

Infinite regress assumes everything came from something else. I'm not talking about that.

K

[Kurieuo]

The way you put "since I can't lack belief" seems amiss...

But, nonetheless, my belief would lean with Ed.
Besides being Atheist, he's given my no reason to consider him a liar.

Yeah I see your point; to assume Ken has Ice cream in his freezer is easy.
Now that I look at it, that was a very flawed question I asked you; it doesn’t apply very well with questions about the existence of God. I think it goes back to the ole claim “extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence”.

If the claim is that Kenny has Ice cream at his home, that is easy to accept; you would even be willing to take Ed’s word for it. But if Ed told you that Ken has a Dinosaur at his home; now his word is no longer sufficient; you are going to require much more evidence to support that claim because the Dinosaur claim is an extraordinary claim; Ice cream is not. To the Atheist, God is an extraordinary claim as well

I wish to note here that your original point was in relation to my argument put forward against a lack of belief in/about something.

It serves as an argument against those Atheists who say they merely lack a belief in or of God.
Such Atheists say that no positive claims are being made about God's existence or lack thereof, because they're not believing God doesn't exist but rather lack a belief in God's existence. Therefore they can criticize belief in God all they want without having to put forward any justifications for their own disbelief. This "position" is what my argument is attacking as being logically unsound.

Our small exchange here seems to have derailed from that and become more about belief in God.

However, I'd like to re-reflect your example upon my original argument which you were responding to.
Let me just say, that even if I do not believe Ed that Ken has a dinosaur at his home, this does not mean I lack a belief in whether or not about Ken has a dinosaur at home.
For I hold some belief in my head about a dinosaur and the kind that pops into my head.
And you know what, this means it could actually be true. Because I'm picturing a dinosaur that is green with dots.
Then I thought, well actually, Ed might be playing a trick. Making me go "yeah right, as if."
Then I rock up and the Wiggles are you your place with Dorothy the Dinosaur.
Or perhaps Ed thought it would be funny seeing you dressed up in a dinosaur outfit for your new job with Dr. Dino.
Who knows right?

In any case, I do have developed beliefs by Ed merely mentioning something to me.
If Ed did not tell me about any dinosaur being at Ken's, only then is that when I lack any belief on the matter.
The one thing I cannot claim post-Ed telling me Ken has a dinosaur at home, is that I lack a belief in or about "Ken having a Dinosaur at his home."
Therefore, my original argument appears to hold in your presented scenarios.

Okay I see your point; you do not believe Ken has the dinosaur, and your justification for believing Ken doesn't is perhaps it sounds unrealistic. I guess relating it all to the Atheist would be the Atheist says he believes God doesn't exist, and his justification for believing this is because to him it sounds unrealistic.

Besides my disagreement which such an analysis of God, that's an internally sound position to take.
The person who says I don't believe in God because such sounds unrealistic; such a person is affirming a positive position that denies God's existence. So my formal argument doesn't apply.

As far as not believing in something because it sounds unrealistic, well that's really something we all do isn't it?
It's like the first filter we come to learn when very young and gullible. Does it sound realistic what a person is saying? We learn the people like to take us for a ride and have a laugh when gullible. We don't like being laughed out, so we start being a bit more critical and demanding evidence, especially for those things that sound far-fetched to us.
However, sometimes something that sounds unrealistic ends up surprising us.
I pray you are one day surprised Ken, before you die.

[Kenny]

Thanks,Kenny but this is philosophy from the 13 th century that was directly confronting naturalism and it has never been refuted or has'nt.I don't know why intelligent people ignore reality in order to reject God,I mean you tell me how since you do.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are wrong. Do that then everything should start making sense.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Sometimes it is easier to see the layers, for example, without physical laws can matter exist? Probably not.
It seems easy to see, well at least for me, and you seemed to get it so it must be somewhat clear.

So now we have physical laws that have always existed, but nonetheless they still may be contingent.
If matter depends upon a set of physical laws greater than itself, which it seems to me would be, then matter is contingent.
Is there some foundational unifying force upon which absolutely every thing is contingent, which is itself immovable, having always existed without being dependent upon anything else?
THAT, is the question. Right?

Good question, but does there have to be? Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

I believe there has to be a foundational something.
Can everything be contingent, meaning that there is no necessary foundational something existing in and of itself from which all else is built upon? If a "yes" sounds logical to you, then I'd encourage you to build some arguments for such.

For me though, such goes against basic intuition.
I can also think of some logical arguments against this, but I'd be happy to entertain arguments for the flip side?